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

16, the assessee raised following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the Long term capital gains earned from scrip of Pro Fin Capital Services Ltd. amounting to Rs 15,57,347/- as genuine, when SEBI had imposed fine

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

16, the assessee raised following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the Long term capital gains earned from scrip of Pro Fin Capital Services Ltd. amounting to Rs 15,57,347/- as genuine, when SEBI had imposed fine

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

16, the assessee raised following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in allowing the Long term capital gains earned from scrip of Pro Fin Capital Services Ltd. amounting to Rs 15,57,347/- as genuine, when SEBI had imposed fine

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 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

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

16 & lastly 2017-18 (iv) Assessee has claimed benefit spanning across four years. Whereas originally the construction of house as envisaged by the provision of Section 54 must be completed within three years after the transfer of original asses. 1. With respect to above the contraversory is whether deduction u/s 54F is available in respect of Capital Gain

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

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

gains. 14. I.T.A. No. 79/Nag/2010 (ITAT, Nagpur) Plastic Surge Industries Pvt Ltd -Vs- Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax 15. I.T.A. No. 6429/Mum/2009 (ITAT, Mumbai) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax –Vs- Naishadh V. Vachharajani 16. I.T.A. No. 961/Mum/2010 (ITAT, Mumbai) Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) –Vs- ACIT 17. (2006) 6 SOT 0247 (ITAT, Mumbai) Mukesh R. Marolia -Vs- Additional Commissioner Of Income

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

gains. 14. I.T.A. No. 79/Nag/2010 (ITAT, Nagpur) Plastic Surge Industries Pvt Ltd –Vs- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 15. I.T.A. No. 6429/Mum/2009 (ITAT, Mumbai) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax –Vs- Naishadh V. Vachharajani 16. I.T.A. No. 961/Mum/2010 (ITAT, Mumbai) Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) –Vs- ACIT 17. (2006) 6 SOT 0247 (ITAT, Mumbai) Mukesh R. Marolia –Vs- Additional Commissioner Of Income

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

16 on 30.09.2015 declaring income of `. 27,59,930/–. Thereafter, a search action under section 132 was carried out on 26.11.2015 on Ramsons Group, Nagpur. The assessee is one of the persons covered under the said search. Pursuant to search action, notice under section 153A dated 21.03.2017 was served upon the assessee. Rajesh Sarda (AY2015-16) ITA 44/Nag/2022 In response

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

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

Capital Gain 57,07,771 Less: Exemption: Under section 54 –invested in Residential Property jointly with 05 Other co–purchasers. The assessee’s shares comes to 1/6th in purchase consideration of residential property (1/6th of ` 85,01,000) 14,16

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

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

capital gain statement that you have sold shares of M/s M.V. Pvt Ltd. for total consideration of Rs. 16,45,46,955/- on 31/12/2011. It is also noticed that the shares were purchased by you on 31/12/2008 for value of Rs. 647,028/- 3. In this regard you are requested to submit following information regarding

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) stated in his order that the learned Authorised Representative has filed explanation for the deposits in the bank account which is summarised in the table below:– Source explained by the appellant Total Bank Account Receipts S.no. details

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

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI ASHOK VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain is to be assessed, whether it is in the A.Y. 2012-13 being the year in which the modified Joint Development Agreement executed or in the year where the assessee received his share in the form of constructed area which was offered to tax in A.Y. 2018-19. On perusal of the modified Joint Development Agreement as placed

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI AJAY VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain is to be assessed, whether it is in the A.Y. 2012-13 being the year in which the modified Joint Development Agreement executed or in the year where the assessee received his share in the form of constructed area which was offered to tax in A.Y. 2018-19. On perusal of the modified Joint Development Agreement as placed