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

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

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

M/S SANJAY SHANKARRAO JADHAO,AMRAVATI vs. JIOINT C.I.T. AMRAVATI RANGE,, AMRAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi

234C of l.T Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 2. Apropos ground relating to disallowance of claim of ` 2,88,986 on plant and machinery. 3. The assessee, in this case, is a proprietor of several businesses. The Assessing Officer, during the course of assessment proceedings, noted that in case of one of its business concerns namely M/s. Jadhao

SHRI. ANAND DAGA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Anand Daga Vs. The Acit 601/602, B Wing, 6Th Floor Central Circle 2(2) Lokmat Bhawan,Ramdaspeth, Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aedpd 1144B Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri Mahavir Atal, Ca Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)- 3, Nagpur Dated 09-08-2021 For The Assessment Year 2017-18 Wherein The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds.

capital gain in the A.Y. 2017-18 by misinterpreting the provisions of Section 53 of the Transfer of Properties Act, 1882. 2. That on the facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) erred in misinterpreting the provisions of Section 54 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of use of property constructed. 3. The appellant denies his liability

ASHUTOSH RAM SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(2), NAGPUR

In the result, both the above Tax

Bench: Shripawan Singh& Shrikhettra Mohan Royashutosh Ram Shewalkar Ito, Ward – 5(2) 80, North Ambazari Road, Vs Bsnl, Rttcbldg Daga Layout Nagpur – 440010 Dharmapeth, Nagpur - 440010 [Pan: Aepps8104N] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shrimanoj G Moryani, Adv& Shribhavesh M. Moryani, Adv Revenue By Shrisurjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 01.04.2026

234C of the Income Tax act, the same may kindly be deleted 10. The appellant craves leave to amend, add or take a new ground or grounds at the time of hearing;” ITA431/Nag/2024 (A.Y. 2014–15) Ashutosh Ram Shewalkar 2. At the very outset, we noticed that there is a delay of 79 day in filing the present appeal before

SHRI ASHRAF KHARWA ,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.73/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Ashraf Kharwa, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nagpur. C/O. M/S. Loya Bagri & Co., Chartered Accountants, Gandhibag, Nagpur- 440002. Pan : Adcpa7765P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajesh V. Loya Revenue By : Shri G. J. Ninawe Date Of Hearing : 01.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2007-08 Arises Against The Cit(A)-2, Nagpur’S Order Dated 18.01.2019 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-2/474/2009-10, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Raises The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal :- “(1) That The Order Of The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-2, Nagpur Is Bad In Law & Wrong On Facts & The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Partly Confirming The Same. (2) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer To The Extent Of Rs.50,000/-

234C. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the action is unjustified.” 3. Learned counsel submits at the outset that the assessee’s grounds no.1 and 6 are general/consequential in nature. Rejected accordingly. 4. The assessee’s first and foremost raises the issue of cost of improvement in the alleged capital asset stated

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

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

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

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