DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

34,325 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

34 to 82, wherein, at Page–65 & 66, working of capital gain is disclosed. It clearly gives the break-up of indexed cost of acquisition and cost of improvement as well as expenditure wholly and exclusively in connection with transfer. At Page–92, detailed explanations reconciling difference in sale consideration as reported by the assessee in the return of income

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

Capital Gain Rs. 4,59,13,200/- Income tax Officer vide order under section 143(3) dated 21/03/2016 determined the income at Rs. 8,34

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

34,115/- during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2014-2015 and shown book profit at Rs. 2,79,05,115/-. Since the period of holding of the shares is more than one year the capital gain transaction were long term capital of the assessee and exempted U/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

34,115/- during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2014-2015 and shown book profit at Rs. 2,79,05,115/-. Since the period of holding of the shares is more than one year the capital gain transaction were long term capital of the assessee and exempted U/s. 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee

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

section 10(38). The AO prepared summary of working of capital gain in respect of both the scrips. The AO recorded that assessee purchased 40000 share of Premier Capital Services Ltd. in August, 2012 and sold the same scrip during May and June, 2014 and have shown capital gain of `. 8.42 crore. Similarly, for Kailash Auto Finance

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

Capital Gain Less: Exemption: Under section 54 – ` 34,05,731 invested in Residential Property (With a period of 1 year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. METROCITY HOMES, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

34,88,760. Subsequently, notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 08/10/2020 was issued and served. Thereafter, notices dated 08/02/2021 and 30/08/2021, under section 142(1) of the Act were issued and served to the assessee. The Assessing Officer completed assessment under section 153C r/w section 143(3) of the Act, by passing assessment order dated 28/09/2021, determining

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gain in accordance with law. 21. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011–12 is partly allowed. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 ITA no.107/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal – A.Y. 2013–14 22. The assessee has raised following grounds:– “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the entire

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of income and capital receipt: The income of a previous year is always subject to tax in the assessment year. Thus, income is always taxable unless exempted. However, the capital receipt shall not be subject to tax unless expressly

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of income and capital receipt: The income of a previous year is always subject to tax in the assessment year. Thus, income is always taxable unless exempted. However, the capital receipt shall not be subject to tax unless expressly

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

34,726 on sale of Shantinagar, Nagpur house property against long-term 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

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)

capital gain upto 14/03/2013 and/or to construct a house on or before 15/03/2014. As the Assessee has claimed that she has constructed a house by spending total amount of Rs. 38.70/- Lakhs {Rs. 8 Lac and Rs. 30.70 Lac during the F.Ys. 2011-12 & 2012-13 respectively} which is admittedly within the time limit as prescribed u/sec

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

gains arising on sale of property by the assessee. The Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record to show that the assessee has received any money other than the sale consideration mentioned in the sale deed. The Assessing officer worked out the difference in sale consideration shown by assessee and market value of the property for stamp duty

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

section 43CA cannot be applied in the appellant's case since the property has certain disadvantages. All these facts have been carefully considered by the DVO while determining the market value and therefore, no further relief can be given on this account. The appellant's AR has also referred to certain judicial decisions in support of the arguments