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

Capital Gain Rs. 4,59,13,200/- Income tax Officer vide order under section 143(3) dated 21/03/2016 determined the 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

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. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has purchased the shares of Unlisted Company named Swift IT Infrastructure & Services Limited about

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

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

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

200/- i.e., Rs. 3,56,100/- u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T.Act, 1961. Hence, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed.” 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 7. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the rival arguments made and perused the material available on record. Before us, the sole

M/S. HARIHAR INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 1,, 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. 60/Nag/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.; G-3, Amar Palace, Opp. Patwardhan Ground, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12. Pan : Aabch9888H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Shriram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo, Dr

gain on sale of agricultural land is exempt u/s.2(1A) of I.T.Act, 1961. 3. The addition made by the AO at Rs.31,45,251/- in the assessment framed as business income is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3 M/s. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nagpur 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case

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)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Vide order dated

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

3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or any other bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It may be mentioned that all cooperative banks have been excluded from the purview of this provision in view of the position that under section 80P(2)(a)(i), the profits

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

3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or any other bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It may be mentioned that all cooperative banks have been excluded from the purview of this provision in view of the position that under section 80P(2)(a)(i), the profits

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

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer had given a finding that the transaction was not a genuine transaction and therefore the same

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

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer had given a finding that the transaction was not a genuine transaction and therefore the same

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

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact that the assessing officer had given a finding that the transaction was not a genuine transaction and therefore the same

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

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

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

200/-. It derives income from Rent, Interest, sale of gains and coconut and pooja donation. Books of account have been test checked vis-à-vis the vouchers, bills and supporting documents produced for examination. The assessee trust is not registered u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence the assessment was completed as AOP on 26.12.2017. The entire issues

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

200/-. It derives income from Rent, Interest, sale of gains and coconut and pooja donation. Books of account have been test checked vis-à-vis the vouchers, bills and supporting documents produced for examination. The assessee trust is not registered u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence the assessment was completed as AOP on 26.12.2017. The entire issues

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

200/-. It derives income from Rent, Interest, sale of gains and coconut and pooja donation. Books of account have been test checked vis-à-vis the vouchers, bills and supporting documents produced for examination. The assessee trust is not registered u/s. 12AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence the assessment was completed as AOP on 26.12.2017. The entire issues

M/S. 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