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

21,799/- and Channel Guide (which changed its name to Iris Mediaworks Limited) amounting to Rs 37,43,902/- as genuine without considering the fact that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide letter F.No.03/73/2017-CL-II dated June 2017 to SEBI was categorized as a shell company. 2 Naresh Laxminarayan Grover ITA no.524, 525 & 526/Nag./2024 2. Whether on the facts

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

21,799/- and Channel Guide (which changed its name to Iris Mediaworks Limited) amounting to Rs 37,43,902/- as genuine without considering the fact that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide letter F.No.03/73/2017-CL-II dated June 2017 to SEBI was categorized as a shell company. 2 Naresh Laxminarayan Grover ITA no.524, 525 & 526/Nag./2024 2. Whether on the facts

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 55(2)(ac) provides quoted rate of shares as cost of acquisition as on 31/01/2018 in certain cases to determine capital gain. H) Recent decision dated 15/01/2021 of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Smt. Krishna Devi in ITA No.125/2020 fully supports the case of assessee

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

gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset; (b) "long-term specified asset" for making any investment under this section during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2006 and ending with the 31st day of March, 2007, means any bond, redeemable after three years and issued on or after

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

Capital gain but remaining in the time frame stipulated in Section 54F, deduction u/s 54F cannot be denied. The appellant also stated that it is on record and admitted fact that construction started in Asst Year 2015-16 and culminated in Asst Year 2017-18. In course of this period the Assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F for gain

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

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

section 10(38) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries –Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

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 is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

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

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

21,81,229 (Coat as on 25/04/2007 – ` 10,80,000) Expenses on Transfer 1,61,000 Capital Gain 57,07,771 Less: Exemption: Under section

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

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

capital gain is being calculated as 20 unexplained expenditure under section 69C of the Act at 7,53,672, being 5% of the amount of addition made under section 68 of the Act at 1,50,73,436. The aforesaid addition has been upheld by learned CIT(A) by noting at Para 5 that the assessee might have incurred

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI ASHOK VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

21-02-2024 2 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/NAG/2019, A.Y. 2012-13 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These two appeals filed by the Revenue against the common order dated 31-10-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Since, the issues raised in both the appeals

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI AJAY VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

21-02-2024 2 ITA Nos. 412 & 413/NAG/2019, A.Y. 2012-13 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : These two appeals filed by the Revenue against the common order dated 31-10-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Nagpur [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2012-13. 2. Since, the issues raised in both the appeals

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

Gains from Business and Profession" shall be computed in accordance with either cash system of accounting or mercantile system of accounting. As per sub section (1) of section 128 of the 2013 Act a company is compulsorily required to follow mercantile system of accounting. The Appellant being a company is compulsory required to follow mercantile system of accounting with respect