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

D to M are judgements)” 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

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

5 introduction of capital was called. (P-2) [Vol.- III) ii) At page 6 capital gain is derived from immovable property was submitted and explained at the time of hearing. iii) At page 65 66 computation of capital gain is fully disclosed. iv) At page 92 specific query of capital gain is explained. v) At page 95 details of stamp

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 68 was not proper.” These judgements make it amply clear that the receipts that have already been shown by the assessee as income in the books of accounts/original returns and returns filed u/s 153A also cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. In the circumstances of the case and in view of aforecited judgements. I hold that

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

5) TMI 801-CALCUTTA HIGH COURT- The High Court held that lack of enquiry, where enquiry is necessary, can be treated as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue so as to justify revisional jurisdiction. It was for non inquiry, the validity of action under Section 263 was held justified in a case of non verification of share capital contribution

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

d in this sub-section shall apply where (a) the assessee, 1. owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or 2 (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer of the original asset

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

D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M. The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 10/08/2017, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Nagpur, [―learned CIT(A)‖], for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds:– ―1. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned

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

17 to 41 of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A), which are reproduced below for ready reference:– “7 Ground Nos. 2 To 10 : The appellant has challenged the addition made by AO of Rs. 5,87,48,683/- as sale proceeds on sale of shares u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act. I have gone through the assessment

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

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

17,07,742, has been paid. The assessee received dividend amounting to ₹ 48,899, which was claimed exempt under section 10(34) of the Act and claimed expenditure at ₹ 15,75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being

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

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

D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 01.06.2023 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 by the ACIT, Circle

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

D E R The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 21/11/2023, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2015–16. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee:– “1. Order passed by Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur, dated 12/05/2023 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order ITA Nos. 220/NAG/2023 (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) passed u/s. 143(3) dated

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

d) of section 269UA. Explanation 2. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asser in any manner whatsoever. directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily

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

D. Sheppard (48 ITR 237) (SC); CIT v Vazir Sultan & Sons (36 ITR 175, 185) (SC); P. H. Divecha v CIT (48 ITR 222) (SC); W.A. Guff v CIT (31 ITR 826) (Bom.); Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. v CIT (36 ITR 544) (Ker.), reversed on another point CIT v Helen Rubber Industries Ltd. (44 ITR 714) (SC); CIT v Shaw