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

23 Naresh Laxminarayan Grover ITA no.524, 525 & 526/Nag./2024 9. We have carefully analysed the detailed contentions. The facts cited by the Assessing Officer are illusory and baseless. It is surprising that when the assessee has paid tax on short term capital gain under section 111A @15%, the Assessing Officer is reclassifying the same to be taxed under section

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

23 Naresh Laxminarayan Grover ITA no.524, 525 & 526/Nag./2024 9. We have carefully analysed the detailed contentions. The facts cited by the Assessing Officer are illusory and baseless. It is surprising that when the assessee has paid tax on short term capital gain under section 111A @15%, the Assessing Officer is reclassifying the same to be taxed under section

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

23 Naresh Laxminarayan Grover ITA no.524, 525 & 526/Nag./2024 9. We have carefully analysed the detailed contentions. The facts cited by the Assessing Officer are illusory and baseless. It is surprising that when the assessee has paid tax on short term capital gain under section 111A @15%, the Assessing Officer is reclassifying the same to be taxed under section

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

Section 55(2)(ac) provides quoted rate of shares as cost of acquisition as on 31/01/2018 in certain cases to determine capital gain. H) Recent decision dated 15/01/2021 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi in ITA No.125/2020 fully supports the case of assessee. (P- 1 to 10) (7, 8, 9, 10

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

10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted chart of capital Gain working and profit on sale of shares account during the course of assessment proceedings as well as in the return of income, which is on Page-8 of the Paper Book (Part-I) . All the transaction of sale purchase of shares was made through

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

gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset; (b) "long-term specified asset" for making any investment under this section during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2006 and ending with the 31st day of March, 2007, means any bond, redeemable after three years and issued on or after

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

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

VASANT CO-OP SHETKARI GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited; At. Yavatmal Road, Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal-440 010 Pan : Aaaat1439M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pravin Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr

section (1) of Sec. 139 in a bank account maintained under the Capital Gain Account Scheme, 1988 (CGAS) with a specified bank, and the same shall thereafter within the specified time period be utilized for all or any of the aforementioned purposes. 13. As is discernible from Sec. 54G of the Act, the availability of deduction therein contemplated would

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

10. We further noticed that the Assessing Officer has primarily placed reliance on the report given by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Kolkata to arrive at the conclusion that the long term capital gain reported by the assessee is bogus in nature. We further noticed that the Investigation Report prepared by Investigation Wing, Kolkata is general

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

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

23,470/-. Case was selected for scrutiny, statutory notices u/s 143(2) & 142(1) of the Act were issued and duly served upon the assessee. Ld.Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that assessee had declared long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,32,68,850/- and claimed the same as being exempt u/s 10(38) of Act in respect to sale

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

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

10. It is clear that the partners are the legal and beneficial owners of the lease hold land and the assignment was made only in their personal capacity. Since the lease hold right belongs to the partners in the individual capacity therefore in no way the firm can be considered to be owner of the capital asset

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

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and find substantial merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Since the Mother of the assessee has expired long ago and sufficient evidences have been filed by the assessee to demonstrate the transaction, we set aside the impugned order passed

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

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and find substantial merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Since the Mother of the assessee has expired long ago and sufficient evidences have been filed by the assessee to demonstrate the transaction, we set aside the impugned order passed

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

10. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record and find substantial merit in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the assessee. Since the Mother of the assessee has expired long ago and sufficient evidences have been filed by the assessee to demonstrate the transaction, we set aside the impugned order passed