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

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 and Steel, filed his return of income for A.Y. 2015– 16 on 30.09.2015 declaring income

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

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

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

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 is to be added

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

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

RAGHAV AGRITECH,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

234C of the act. 7. The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of appeal with the permission of the Hon'ble members.” 4. Facts in Brief:– The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of all types of Agriculture Shed Net and is regular in filing its return of income which has been assessed

SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

capital. The creditworthiness of the lender nor the genuineness of the transaction is examined by ΑΘ. From the record, it is evident that the AO has not carried out any such factual verification. This has made the assessment orders for the A.Y. 2014-15 prejudicial in as much as erroneous to the interest of Revenue. Hence, the AO needs

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

capital. The creditworthiness of the lender nor the genuineness of the transaction is examined by ΑΘ. From the record, it is evident that the AO has not carried out any such factual verification. This has made the assessment orders for the A.Y. 2014-15 prejudicial in as much as erroneous to the interest of Revenue. Hence, the AO needs

TAKALI JANSEVA NAGRI SAHKARI PAT SANSTHA LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(2), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao

capital and assessee was 2 Takali Janseva Nagri Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd. ITA no.616/Nag./2024 required to maintain liquid funds to meet its time and demand deposits repayment responsibility, as per applicable statutory regulatory guidelines. 3. Without prejudice, the assessee was also eligible for claim of deduction in respect of interest of Rs.48,77,959 under section