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

capital gain; and (ii) investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer after making enquiries and examination concluded assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 21/09/2019, accepting the income as per return filed by assessee. 4. The learned PCIT invoked jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. The learned PCIT on a perusal of the record observed that

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 to Beneficiaries. It is submitted that none of the observations referred to in Chapter 6 of the report are directly or indirectly applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessment order dose not refer to any indulgence of the assessee in any of the activities described in Chapter 6 and hence the case of the assessee

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 to Beneficiaries. It is submitted that none of the observations referred to in Chapter 6 of the report are directly or indirectly applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessment order dose not refer to any indulgence of the assessee in any of the activities described in Chapter 6 and hence the case of the assessee

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 to Beneficiaries. It is submitted that none of the observations referred to in Chapter 6 of the report are directly or indirectly applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessment order dose not refer to any indulgence of the assessee in any of the activities described in Chapter 6 and hence the case of the assessee

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

gains from transfer of any long-term capital not being a residential house could claim benefit under the said Section provided, any one of the following three conditions were satisfied: (i) the assessee had within a period of one year before the sale, purchased a residential house. (ii) within two years after the date of transfer of the original capital

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

capital gain with consistent deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition for ` 40,09,499. Accordingly, grounds no.1 to 4, raised by the assessee are allowed. 12. Ground no.5, relates to charging of interest under section

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

capital gain declared by assessee as such and accept the same. 3. I.T.A. No. 3801/Mum/2011 (ITAT, Mumbai) Ms. Farrah Marker –Vs- Income Tax Officer In this factual and legal matrix of the case, as discussed above, we find that the addition under section 68 of the Act made and confirmed by the authorities below to be unsustainable and therefore, directed

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

capital gain and to avoid paying the taxes, which is not related in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on statement recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross examine has been granted to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the assessee and made addition under section

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

12. A reading of the provisions contained in section 54F(1), as it stood at the relevant point of time, shows that exemption from payment of tax on the capital gains

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

12. In our considered view, before proceeding any further, it would be relevant to cull out Section 54G of the Act, which reads as under: “54G. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain

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 to be not claimed as exempt. However, in the course of assessment proceedings it was explained that the statement given being not correct claim of Rajesh Sarda (AY2015-16) ITA 44/Nag/2022 exemption u/s 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 be granted. The Tribunal on considering such facts and evidences accepted LTCG. The aforesaid decision of Tribunal has been

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

capital gains by invoking section 50C, which amounts to double taxation. Section 14 of the Act clearly demonstrates heads of income in a watertight manner. A singular transaction cannot be vivisected into two heads of income. Thus, 12

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 gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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 gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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 gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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 gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor

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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor