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

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 of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

M/S RACHANA CONSTRUCTIONS,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gain. The learned Counsel submitted that it is settled proposition of law that 5 M/s. Rachana Constructions when on the date of purchase and on the date of sale if the character of asset sold is agricultural land, the surplus arising on same is not exigible to tax. In support of this contention the learned Counsel relied upon

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Gain (LTCG). Please explain in detail all such modes employed by you for providing accommodation entries. Ans. Sir, The modes employed by me for providing accommodation entries against commission are as under: 1. Subscription to share capital at premium:- Sir, in such cases shares of the companies of clients/beneficiaries are subscribed at high premium by the companies floated/managed/controlled

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act\n1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is\nunjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for\nnot allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of\nredemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

gain is on the revenue account? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting disallowance of premium payable on zero percent fully redeemable non- convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 3,63,01,370/- without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

150 of the Paper Book. iii. So far as transfer of fund the appellant has submitted bank statement of Avance Technologies Limited during the course of assessment proceedings, which is clearly showing amount transferred through proper banking channel, the appellant encloses herewith the copy of Bank Statement of Avance Technologies Limited alongwith Copy of account of Avance Technologies Limited, which

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

RADHEY MINERALS LTD,,NAGPUR vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi.. S.No.

capital of the regular business of the assessee. (5) That the Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in charging interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C and the learned C.I.T.(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer. 2. Since the facts are identical, we refer to the facts and figures of assessment year