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
ITA 44/NAG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Feb 2026AY 2015-16
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
Section 10(38)Section 132Section 153ASection 234ASection 254(1)Section 68Section 69C
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. The ld. Sr DR for the revenue while making his submissions strongly