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

4. The Assessing Officer added back ` 3,11,34,325 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain

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

4. The Assessing Officer added back ` 3,11,34,325 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gain; and (ii) investment in immovable property. The Assessing Officer after making enquiries and examination concluded assessment under section 143(3) of the Act on 21/09/2019, accepting the income as per return filed by assessee. 4

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

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section

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

gain transaction were long term capital transaction and the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). 5 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 4

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

gain transaction were long term capital transaction and the assessee has claimed exemption under section 10(38) of Income Tax Act,1961 (\"the Act\").\n4. The assessee had received physical delivery of 4

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gain of Rs.83,85,792/- has to be charged to tax which is added to the returned income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 27(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for concealment of income by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income are hereby initiated.” 4

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

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess." 11. For computing the income under the head 'business income certain deductions are allowed from such business income and one such deduction is laid down in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The said section provides

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess." 11. For computing the income under the head 'business income certain deductions are allowed from such business income and one such deduction is laid down in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The said section provides

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

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

capital gain arising from transfer of residential property. 4. Facts in Brief:– In the present case, the assessee is an individual who filed his return of income for the year under consideration electronically on 30/08/2018, declaring total income at ` 17,040, and the said return of income was processed under section

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain assessable under A.Y. 2014-15 in terms of sub-section (1) of section 72 of the Act which in our opinion, is justified. Therefore, we find no infirmity in the order of CIT(A) and it is upheld. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 3 raised by the assessee fails and are dismissed. 9. Ground No. 4

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 gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section

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 gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section

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 gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section

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 gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in invoking the provisions of section

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

Gains from Business and Profession" shall be computed in accordance with either cash system of accounting or mercantile system of accounting. As per sub section (1) of section 128 of the 2013 Act a company is compulsorily required to follow mercantile system of accounting. The Appellant being a company is compulsory required to follow mercantile system of accounting with respect