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

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant has bought and sold these

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant has bought and sold these

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 Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant has bought and sold these

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

Section 54 in FY 2014-15. 4.17 Most importantly, the assessee has himself claimed in his reply dated 25.12.2019. In your Show Cause Notice, you had pointed out that I had started the Construction work of new residential house long before the capital gain arise. It is not the fact. I had constructed the house at 6 floor. The advance

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

2) of the Act was issued and served on ITBA. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/06/2019. In response to notice issued, the details called for were uploaded. The assessee filed Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, etc. Various details were called for electronically vide notices under section

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

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

2) of the Act was issued and served on ITBA. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/06/2019. In response to notice issued, the details called for were uploaded. The assessee filed Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, etc. Various details were called for electronically vide notices 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

6,85,03,200/- Less : Indexed Cost of Acquisition Rs. 2,25,90,000/- Capital Gain Rs. 4,59,13,200/- Income tax Officer vide order under section

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of subsection (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect of the transfer

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

2,79,05,115/-. Since the period of holding of the shares is more than one year the capital gain transaction were long term capital of the assessee and exempted U/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted chart of capital Gain working and profit on sale of shares account during the course of assessment

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

2,79,05,115/-. Since the period of holding of the shares is more than one year the capital gain transaction were long term capital of the assessee and exempted U/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee has submitted chart of capital Gain working and profit on sale of shares account during the course of assessment

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain. [ As per the above said amendment, in sub-section (1) to section 54 of the Act, for the words “constructed, a residential house”, the words “constructed, one residential house” have been substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 5.3.2 In the present case, the assessee purchased more than one residential flat vide two different sale deeds, i.e. two flats and claimed deduction

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 to be not claimed as exempt. However, in the course of assessment proceedings it was explained that the statement given being not correct claim of Rajesh Sarda (AY2015-16) ITA 44/Nag/2022 exemption u/s 10(38) of I.T. Act 1961 be granted. The Tribunal on considering such facts and evidences accepted LTCG. The aforesaid decision of Tribunal has been

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess." 11. For computing the income under the head 'business income certain deductions are allowed from such business income and one such deduction is laid down in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The said section provides

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess." 11. For computing the income under the head 'business income certain deductions are allowed from such business income and one such deduction is laid down in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The said section provides

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

6. Here, it would be relevant to mention that the Finance Act 2018 has inserted a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA providing 5% tolerance limit in variation between declared sale consideration vis-a-vis stamp duty value for making no addition. Similar proviso was inserted by the Finance Act 2018 to sub-section (1) to section

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

gains of business attributable to the business of providing banking and credit facilities to the members of society. Therefore, even if certain expenses are disallowed, it will result in increase in gross taxable income and deduction under section 80P, would be allowable on 100% of such gross taxable income. 5.5 This jurisprudence is also endorsed by the Pune Tribunal

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

2) explains if the net result of the computation under any head of income, other than “Capital gains”, is a loss in respect of any assessment year such loss be set off against income under any head under capital gain assessable for that year. We note that the provisions u/s. 71 of the Act relates to current year loss which