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:

Capital Gain was duly shown by the appellant. He is rather motivated by his desire to bring the said sale proceeds under the maximum tax rate by treating it as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. I do not agree with the treatment given by the AO to said receipts. In fact, during one such hearing I clarified

PRAMOD AGRAWAL ,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Accordingly, the grounds of appeal 2 & 3 are dismissed

Bench: Sh. Vikram Singh Yadav & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.Sh. Pramod Agrawal (Huf) Pr. Cit-2, 301, Sai Ankur Apartments Nagpur-440 001 Ramdaspeth Vs. Nagpur-440 010 Pan:Aaihp 2699N (Respondent) (Appellant)

section 10 in ITR in respect of Capital Gain trading in a Penny Stock Company. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 28.03.2018 has been issued. In response, the assessee filed ITR on 12/06/2018 for A.Y.2011-12. Further, notice u/s 143(2). and 142(1) of the Act have also been issued. The assessee through his representative participated

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

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

gain, first on considering sale consideration at `. 70,00,000/– and after reducing investment made as per section 54B, the assessee has suffered capital loss and in second working in considering deemed sale consideration of `. 1.20 crore, the assessee also suffered capital loss. The assessee also furnished detail explanation and submitted that if valuation of property

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

section 263 was not sustainable, and that, on facts, the income was required to be taxed under the head ‘Capital gains

ITO- (INTERNATION TAXATION),, NAGPUR vs. SMT. URMILA SHARAN RAMPAL,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 263 of the Act by taking another possible view by the CIT. The matter of controversy is in connection with treating the long term capital gain

LAXMAN PANDURANG DUDHE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

capital gain valuing the 2 ITA-177/Nag/2017 property as on 1.4.1981 and also regarding disallowance of dalali expenses. For this, the assessee has raised following six grounds :- “1. The notice issued u/s 263 and the order passed u/s 263 are illegal as the same are not in conformity to the basic requirements of section

VIKAS GUPTA ,INDORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

gain. It provides that from the full value of the consideration received or accrued to an assessee on transfer of capital assets, the cost of acquisition, cost of any improvement and any expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer are to be debited. This expression “full value of the consideration” is to be deemed equivalent to the amount on which

SAN FINANCE CORPORATION,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

capital gain. All such details have were required to be examined by the Assessing Officer and he has examined nothing. For the reasons stated above, we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for invoking the provisions of section 263

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

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

263 needs to be quashed.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of CIT. 6. On hearing both the sides, we find relevant to go through certain decisions on this issue of allowability of such set off of such brought forward capital loss against taxable capital gains of the current year

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

263 needs to be quashed.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of CIT. 6. On hearing both the sides, we find relevant to go through certain decisions on this issue of allowability of such set off of such brought forward capital loss against taxable capital gains of the current year

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

263 needs to be quashed.” 5. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the order of CIT. 6. On hearing both the sides, we find relevant to go through certain decisions on this issue of allowability of such set off of such brought forward capital loss against taxable capital gains of the current year

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

gain is on the revenue account? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting disallowance of premium payable on zero percent fully redeemable non- convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 3,63,01,370/- without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount

TUSHAR AMBADAS PATIL ,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NAGPUR -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.44/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2015-16 Tushar Patil, The Principal C/O.Nilesh Toshniwal, Vs Commissioner Of G-004, Smruti Apartments, Income Tax, Nagpur-1. Opp.Dnc, Congress Nagar, Nagpur – 440015. Pan: Ajwpp2501N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri.Saket Bhatted - Advocate Revenue By Shri Kailash G.Kanojiya– Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nagpur-1 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.01.2019 Emanating From The Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 31.03.2017. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Tushar Ambadas Patil [A]

Capital Gain in the Return of Income for A.Y.2015-16 and claimed benefit of Section 54 purchasing another property. The ld.Pr.CIT mentioned in the Order under section 263