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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits and without proper appreciation of the facts and submissions on record, rendering the order unjustified, unwarranted, and excessive. 4. The learned

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 148 of the Act in response to the which, the assessee, on 08/02/2019, filed her return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 declaring income at ` 5,35,480. The Information u/s 133(6) was called for from Revenue Department, Talathi Karyalaya, Tahsil Nagpur (Rural) on 04.11.2019 regarding the 7/12 extract of the land. The Assessing Officer

ANIL SHANKAR PALEWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

250 of the Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in disallowing and the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi grossly erred in confirming the denial of benefit of exemption under section 54EC

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

Gain (LTCG). Please explain in detail all such modes employed by you for providing accommodation entries. Ans. Sir, The modes employed by me for providing accommodation entries against commission are as under: 1. Subscription to share capital at premium:- Sir, in such cases shares of the companies of clients/beneficiaries are subscribed at high premium by the companies floated/managed/controlled

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250 3. F–1/502 33,94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

PAWAN SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Agricultural Land not a Capital Asset: The authorities below erred in holding that the land sold by the Appellant was a "capital asset" u/s 2(14) of the Act, ignoring that the said land was situated beyond 8 kilometres from the nearest municipal limits and thus constituted rural agricultural land, outside the ambit

SMT . RAJANI SURENDRA ADAMANE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(1), NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrysmt. Rajani Surendra Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur Adamane, Plot No.30, Near Ghodke School Surendra Vs. Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440024. Pan: Alapa 9897 L (Appellant) (Respondent)

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) in the scrutiny assessment observed that the Assessee had sold one residential property vide sale deed dated 15/03/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation

M/S. DATTA DAIRY PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,BULDHANA vs. ITO, WARD-1, , KHAMGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT (NAFC)”], for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised are as follows: M/s. Datta Dairy Products Pvt Ltd. vs. ITO Ward-1 Khamgaon ITA no. 96/Nag./2021 [1] Learned C.I.T. (A) erred

JAGDISH KANHAIYALAL KHUSHALANI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') which is arising out of rectification order dated 11.09.2020 passed u/s. 154 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-20 (A.Y.) 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the addition u/s. 50C of the Act at ₹ 22,32,000/- for the difference in stamp duty valuation

SHUBHANGI PRAVIN NIDHAN,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Wrong Application of Section 50C: The Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer have erred in adopting the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 55,98,000/- for Agricultural Land-2 instead of the actual sale consideration of Rs. 55.55,295/- even though the difference was less than 5% as permitted under the proviso to Section

SHUBHANGI PRAVIN NIDHAN,NAGPUR vs. A.O., WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

250(6) of the Act. 3. Wrong Application of Section 50C: The Ld. CIT(A) and Assessing Officer have erred in adopting the stamp duty valuation of Rs. 55,98,000/- for Agricultural Land-2 instead of the actual sale consideration of Rs. 55.55,295/- even though the difference was less than 5% as permitted under the proviso to Section

MAROTRAO LAXMAN KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Marotrao Laxman Khadse, The Income Tax Address: 4, Ward No.1, Vs Officer, Ward-3(4), Hdkeshwar, District: Nagpur. Nagpur. Maharashtra – 440034. Pan: Cropk0636B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe– Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 23/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac],Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.04.2022 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Act, 1961 Dated 16.12.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Marotrao Laxman Khadse [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 26.04.2022 emanating from the order under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, 1961 dated 16.12.2019. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : Marotrao Laxman Khadse [A] “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in law on merit

AJIT GANU LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRIPAD GANGADHAR GANU,AMRAVATI vs. DCIT AMRAVATI CIRCLE, AMRAVATI

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

section 250 without affording the opportunity of being heard to the LR of the deceased Assessee even after he was registered on the Portal by the Jurisdictional Income Tax Officer on 23rd Janaury 2024 i.e. well before the impugned Appeal Order was passed, thereby violating the principals of natural justice and vitiating norms of Quasi Judicial Proceedings by passing