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

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

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

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

SHRI AMJAD AHMED SHEIKH,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

263 of the Income Tax Act which is as under :- Explanation 2. For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act\n1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is\nunjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for\nnot allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of\nredemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

MOHD. SHAFI NAUSHAHI ,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX -IV , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.129/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Mohd. Shafi Naushahi, The Commissioner Of Plot No.194, Shahai Manzil, Vs Income Tax-Iv, Nagpur. Gumgaon Road, Dongaragaon, Nagpur. Pan: Adgpn2947L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22 /11/2023

section 263. 4. Without prejudice to aforesaid grounds, the learned CIT has erred in treating the exempt capital gain of Rs. 12,50,000 as "income

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

263 was not called for. (1981) 131 ITR 0597 (Supreme Court) K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr is under section 52(2) and has no relevance to section 50C which is a deeming provision where there is no duty to prove that consideration is passed.. 5.5 In the decisions the Tribunal after analyzing the facts that the difference

NIRMALKUMAR AGRAWAL HUF,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, BHANDARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gain and income from other sources. The Finance Intelligence Unit (FIU) had credible information which indicated that Navdurga Advisory Private Limited (NAPL) was a shell company and consequent 3 Nirmalkumar Agrawal (HUF) ITA no.242/Nag./2025 transactions with this company were suspicious or sham entries. It was also conveyed that high value transactions were undertaken by the assessee with NAPL

LALITA SANJIVREDDY BODKURWAR,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-2, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak Ripote

capital gains shown by the assesses in the return of income, and had accepted the claim of the assessee; thus the order cannot be termed as erroneous. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances, the learned CIT erred in not appreciating that, the AO has accepted assessee's claim which was one of the possible views supported by judicial precedents

POONAM RAJKUMAR DIWANKA,NAGPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, passed order on 24/02/2025, against which the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who, vide order dated 30/05/2025, deleted the addition of ` 64,42,400, on account of long term capital gain

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2010-11. Dayal Agro Products Ltd vs. JCIT, Akola ITA no.201/Nag./2017 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of subsection (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect of the transfer

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon'ble Gujarat High Court the source of gold confiscated was not identifiable and hence