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

200 under section 36(1)(viia) is therefore upheld and confirmed. Ground no. 1 is dismissed. 7.0 Ground No.2: Addition of the interest accrued but not due on securities amounting to Rs.17,39,54,837/-. The appellant had claimed deduction in respect of the interest accrued but not due on the Government and other approved securities. It is argued that

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

section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is respectfully submitted that no business activities were required to be carried on in respect of assets sold under consideration as the project was almost complete in all respects as on 31/03/2012 and as such it cannot be even presumed that appellant has converted his capital assets into stock

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

200/-. Applying indexation, the indexed cost of acquisition works out to Rs.30,69,408/- [2131200 X 1023/711]. Accordingly, the long term capital gain works out to Rs.83.89.792/- [11455200 – 3069408]. 7. On perusal of the return of income of the assessee, it is seen that the assessee has shown income from house properties as under; Sr. Address of Property Whether

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

1. As per Para-1 – “It is seen that the name of Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani son of Shri Khattumal Harchandani also features in the list of cases who availed bogus LTCG and claimed exemption from tax as per provision of Section 10(38) of the I.T. Act, 1961”. The assessee strongly objects to the said allegation made

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

capital gain and paper work has been got up and done merely to give the colour of authenticity to the transactions and creating façade of legitimate transactions and so allegation made against the assessee is denied in toto.\nIt is pertinent to note that the assessee has purchased the shares of Unlisted Company named Swift IT Infrastructure & Services Limited about

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

200 7 Chandadevi B Khandelwal 73,608 7,361 8 Chetan Ashok Agrawal 25,550 2,555 9 Deepak Mohanlalji Chandak 5,167 517 10 Ekta Ravindra Khandelwal 1,73,024 17,302 11 Gangasahay Tarachand 34,640 3,464 12 Garg Agro Industries 61,975 6,198 13 Kamlesh Kisanchand Motwani 550 - 14 Kanika Agro Industries

M/S TAWARI TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -2, KHAMGAON

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

capital of partner is interest bearing funds for the firm. 7.6 In conclusion, the AO erred in not considering that interest free advances were out of interest free loan availed by the appellant. Consequently, the interest of Rs.5,30,902 i.e., 15% of Rs.35,39,351 (interest free advances) deserves to be deleted from the total addition of Rs.9

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

200 shares @ ` 190 each to the total income of the assessee. The assessee being not satisfied with the assessment 4 M/s. Raghav Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.121/Nag./2020 order of the Assessing Officer, carried the matter before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows

VIRAMBHAI HARGOVANBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

1. without consideration, the stamp duty value of which exceeds fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property: 2. for a consideration which is less than the stamp duty value of the property by an amount exceeding fifty thousand rupees, the stamp duty value of such property as exceeds such consideration. 7.6 In view of the above

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

200 36(1)(vii) Interest accrued but not due on Govt. 2. ` 17,39,54,837 and other securities ` 2,68,07,020 3. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) Addition in respect of bad debts 4. ` 2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance

INOCME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1(5), NAGPUR vs. VIDARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK , NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue for A

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

200 36(1)(vii) Interest accrued but not due on Govt. 2. ` 17,39,54,837 and other securities ` 2,68,07,020 3. Deduction u/s 36(1)(vii) Addition in respect of bad debts 4. ` 2,77,22,160 written–off u/s 41(4) ` 1,92,31,029 5. Disallowance of interest accrued ` 10,87,720 6. Disallowance

MRS. DEVYANI AJIT MULIK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

200/- for the purpose of section 50C of the Act. Accordingly, AO made addition of Rs.2,35,08,703/- as the difference between long term capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income and as calculated by the AO. AO also initiated penalty u/s.271(1

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 142(1) and 143(2) from time to time and called the details with respect of claim of the assessee, which is placed on record in Paper Book Page-17 To 18 of the Paper Book. In response to notices assessee has filed reply from time to time before the assessing officer, which is on Page

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 142(1) and 143(2) from time to time and called the details with respect of claim of the assessee, which is placed on record in Paper Book Page-17 To 18 of the Paper Book. In response to notices assessee has filed reply from time to time before the assessing officer, which is on Page

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 142(1) and 143(2) from time to time and called the details with respect of claim of the assessee, which is placed on record in Paper Book Page-17 To 18 of the Paper Book. In response to notices assessee has filed reply from time to time before the assessing officer, which is on Page

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

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

200 income 2006–07 Unexplained ` 12,70,000 Investment Unexplained ` 3,00,000 receipt ` 37,31,700 Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit ` 15,85,682 Commission 36,380 income Income from ticket 4,51,860 booking