DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gain under section 111A @15%, the Assessing Officer is reclassifying the same to be taxed under section 68 r/w section 115BBE of the Act without any basis. This cavalier attitude of the Assessing Officer cannot be countenanced in the absence of any worthwhile enquiry. There is no scope to tinker with the well–reasoned order passed by the learned

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gain under section 111A @15%, the Assessing Officer is reclassifying the same to be taxed under section 68 r/w section 115BBE of the Act without any basis. This cavalier attitude of the Assessing Officer cannot be countenanced in the absence of any worthwhile enquiry. There is no scope to tinker with the well–reasoned order passed by the learned

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

gain transaction were long term capital transaction and the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act,1961 (\"the Act\").\n4. The assessee

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

gain transaction were long term capital transaction and the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 5 Shri

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 I) The 7/12 extract of agricultural sold clearly indicate that agricultural was used for the purpose of agricultural activity; J) Computation of income indicates that assessable capital gain is Rs.170.72lacs. Exemption u/s 54EC is Rs.50lacs and balance amount is allowed u/s 54B. K) Order passed u/s 263 of I.T. Act 1961 does not indicate

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10 Shri Deepak Gadge asset on the dissolution of the firm or otherwise‘ for the purpose of determining the cost of acquisition of the property by the partner, the legislature had covered in the cases of dissolution of a partnership firm. The provisions of section 49(1)(ii)(b) of the Act conspicuously omits the expression ‗otherwise‘ though it covers

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

capital gain were claimed as exempt under section 10(38). The AO prepared summary of working of capital gain in respect

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gain. [ As per the above said amendment, in sub-section (1) to section 54 of the Act, for the words “constructed, a residential house”, the words “constructed, one residential house” have been substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 5.3.2 In the present case, the assessee purchased more than one residential flat vide two different sale deeds, i.e. two flats and claimed deduction

G. H. R. EDUCATION FOUNDATION ,NAGPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

capital under the Companies Act, 2013\" as going concern under section 366 to 374 of Part-1- Chapter XXI of the Companies Act, 2013 read with the companies [Authorized to be Register] Rules, 2014 as amended from time to time, on its incorporation under the Companies Act, 2013 to \"G. H. R. Education Foundation\". The assessee also stated that former

G.H.R. EDUCATION FOUNDATION,NAGPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION, PUNE

In the result, assessee's appeal being ITA no

capital under the Companies Act, 2013\" as\ngoing concern under section 366 to 374 of Part-1- Chapter XXI of the\nCompanies Act, 2013 read with the companies [Authorized to be Register]\nRules, 2014 as amended from time to time, on its incorporation under the\nCompanies Act, 2013 to \"G. H. R. Education Foundation\". The assessee also\nstated that former

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10 of sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act is outside the scope of sub-clause (xviii) of clause (24) of section 2 of the Act. In other words, subsidies which are subject to adjustments against the cost of assets, then, such subsidies cannot be treated as income but, capital receipt. Therefore, impugned subsidy which is adjusted against

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10 of sub-section (1) of section 43 of the Act is outside the scope of sub-clause (xviii) of clause (24) of section 2 of the Act. In other words, subsidies which are subject to adjustments against the cost of assets, then, such subsidies cannot be treated as income but, capital receipt. Therefore, impugned subsidy which is adjusted against

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

10,80,000) Indexed cost of improvement with indexation 23,62,575 Expenses on Transfer 1,61,000 48,00,784 32,49,216 Capital Gain Less: Exemption: Under section

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain assessable under A.Y. 2014-15 in terms of sub-section (1) of section 72 of the Act which in our opinion, is justified. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is upheld. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 4 is consequential

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains on the sale of jewellery ought to be assessed based on the period of holding and in accordance with the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 68,568 on account of interest income