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

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 has been declared in return. Perusal of assessment order does not show that there is any material or evidence on record to impeach the genuineness of transaction of sale of shares by assessee. A.O. has merely drawn adverse inference by observing modus operandi and making general observations. The A.O. has not brought any specific credible evidence on record

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

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

Section 50C and capital gains provisions are not applicable. The sale deed dated 10/07/2009 pertains to a different portion; the remaining land continues as stock-in-trade. Ld. AO was not convinced with the explanations offered by the assessee and computed the LTCG of Rs. 4,34

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 68 of the Act. Long term capital gains declared in the return of income and exemption claimed hereby accepted as shown in return of income. Accordingly, we direct to delete the impugned addition made at Rs.1,50,73,436. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 34

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 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

DCIT-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

section 68 of the Act. Long term capital gains declared in the return of income and exemption claimed hereby accepted as shown in return of income. Accordingly, we direct to delete the impugned addition made at Rs.1,50,73,436. Hence, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 34

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