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

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

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 deductions claimed u/s 80C; xi) Reply to ITO, Ward–2, Amravati dated 20/09/2018; xii) Copy of bank statements and working sheet to explain payment of cost of improvement; xiii) Copy of sample bills & ledger account; 7 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 xiv) Notice for hearing dated 16/02/2022; xv) Assessment order u/s 143(3) r/w section 263 r/w section 144B

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:

capital gain has been declared in return. Perusal of assessment order does not show that there is any material or evidence on record to impeach the genuineness of transaction of sale of shares by assessee. A.O. has merely drawn adverse inference by observing modus operandi and making general observations. The A.O. has not brought any specific credible evidence on record

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

15,00,000, on 18/07/2016. The assessee had computed income from capital gains of ` 1,58,64,162, and claimed exemption under section

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 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act. 13. Charging of interest being consequential and mandatory in nature, the Assessing Officer is directed to give consequential

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 Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15

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

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

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 under section 10(38) could not be bogus in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record. The aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT Vs Divyaben Prafulchandra Pramar (2025) 172 taxmann.com 572 (SC). 15

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

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

15,470 + regi. Charges ` 930 + Franking Charges ` 10,080 = ` 10,34,480 x 272/129) 21,81,229 (Coat as on 25/04/2007 – ` 10,80,000) Expenses on Transfer 1,61,000 Capital Gain 57,07,771 Less: Exemption: Under section

A,C.I.T. (EXEMPTION), NAGPUR vs. M/S VIDARBHA CRICKET ASSOCIATION, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

capital expenditure and other expenditure of appellant institution as per Audit statements on its objects. Considering financial statements expenditure incurred by appellant institution can not be termed as meager as observed by A.O. more so where A.O. himself at para 11 of page 9 has observed in tabulation that percentage of amount spent on cricket including establishment expenses

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

section 50C is not applicable. 2. Without prejudice to above, the computation of capital gain done by AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is incorrect, since while calculating the capital gain on sale of land to M/s Vedbhumi Builders, the cost of acquisition of different land is deducted from the sale price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter

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 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

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 gain arising on sale of shares is concluded to be non-assessable as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of general reports of the Investigation Wing or on the theory of human probabilities. The Tribunal further held that in the absence of any direct evidence linking the assessee with