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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234A, 2334B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 8) Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is proprietor of Lakshya Enterprises engaged in the trading of Iron

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

section 2(14) Income Tax Act, therefore addition made is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the aforesaid; agriculture land was converted into non-agriculture as per the order of the Deputy Divisional Officer, Nagpur, in which clearly mentioned that conversion

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. Any other ground that shall be prayed at the time of hearing.” 11. 3. Facts in Brief:- In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2012, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer during the regular assessment framed under section

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

234B, along with fees under Section 234F of the Act for non-filing of the income tax return under Section 139(1). The same shall be deleted. 15. The learned CIT (A) NFAC has erred in law and acted unjustifiably by confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without conducting any independent verification, without properly considering the provisions

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

capital gains of Rs.73,041 offered by the assessee. In doing so, the learned AO erred in not providing benefit of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.4,55,185 incurred during FY 2006-07, brokerage fees on sale of plot of Rs.25,000 and deduction under section 54 claimed by the assessee on new investment

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

234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 5. The assessee craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing.” 3. The sole point of dispute is whether the addition of ` 3,22,000, towards difference between the fair market value on the same consideration

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

capital gain would fail since there would not be any differential between the stated consideration and the value to be considered by the stamp valuation authority of the State Government for the payment of stamp duty. However, it has been pointed out by the Revenue that the buyers of the properties have paid stamp duty at the value determined

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

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

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

capital gain on sale of land which is not given in the order. 6. The learned CIT (A) erred in not deciding the issue on merits only because of delay. The learned CIT (A) is unjustified in dismissing the appeal which is required to be condoned on bonafide reason. The appellant prays that the delay be condoned and appeal should

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

capital gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD.,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee company is a manufacturer of cement Resin and cement capsules and engaged in trading sale activities. The books of account are regularly maintained

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee company is a manufacturer of cement Resin and cement capsules and engaged in trading sale activities. The books of account are regularly maintained

PRECISION COMPONENT HIGHTECH LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed as above for all the seven years

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

234B of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (7) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal.” 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee company is a manufacturer of cement Resin and cement capsules and engaged in trading sale activities. The books of account are regularly maintained