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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor

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:

43) [Vol.-II] K) The provisions of section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 are applicable in respect to item of credit in the books of account which assessee 28 ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR VS SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA claimed to be in nature of liability and not income. Receipt of sale price of capital assets is shown as income

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

5,76,88,683/-. 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 has submitted chart of capital Gain working and profit on sale of shares account during the course of assessment

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

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

5. The Authorised Representative of the assessee has made the following written submission: The assessee has e-filed return of income on 14/01/2015 declaring net taxable income at Rs. 32,63,962/-. In the return of income assessee has shown income from Salary, income from house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown

KETAN CERAMICS PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)- 16, Mumbai [holding concurrent jurisdiction of CIT(A)–1, Nagpur] dated 05.08.2013 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under :– “(1) That the order of the Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle

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

5,700.41 lakh during the period from 27/10/2009 to 21/03/2013, in the various assets for setting up the manufacturing unit and production of the various products in which the assessee was engaged. The said unit was set up by the assessee in the backward area as notified under the Scheme i.e., at Village Sawanga, Post Shiva, Taluka Nagpur (Brahmin), District

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

5,700.41 lakh during the period from 27/10/2009 to 21/03/2013, in the various assets for setting up the manufacturing unit and production of the various products in which the assessee was engaged. The said unit was set up by the assessee in the backward area as notified under the Scheme i.e., at Village Sawanga, Post Shiva, Taluka Nagpur (Brahmin), District

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

D E R PER KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, dated 11/03/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

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

D E R PER BENCH The aforesaid appeals have been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned orders of even dated 07/08/2021, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11, 2011–12, 2013–14 and 2014–15 respectively. ITA no.105/Nag./2021 Assessee’s Appeal

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

gains of business. So far as public charitable and religious trusts are concerned, their business profits are not exempt from tax, except in the cases falling under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 11(4A) of the IT Act. As the maximum marginal rate of tax under the new proviso to section 164(2) applies to the whole

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

gains of business. So far as public charitable and religious trusts are concerned, their business profits are not exempt from tax, except in the cases falling under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 11(4A) of the IT Act. As the maximum marginal rate of tax under the new proviso to section 164(2) applies to the whole

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- CENTRAL-CIRCLE-2 (1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. JAYMAHAKALI SHIKSHAN SANSTHA, WARDHA

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

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

gains of business. So far as public charitable and religious trusts are concerned, their business profits are not exempt from tax, except in the cases falling under clause (a) or clause (b) of section 11(4A) of the IT Act. As the maximum marginal rate of tax under the new proviso to section 164(2) applies to the whole

SHRI SANKET NANDLAL SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD 1(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is made against the order passed by the CIT(A)-1, Nagpur, dated 21.11.2016, for the assessment year 2009-2010 on the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The order passed by learned A.O. is illegal, incorrect, bad in law and without natural justice. 2. The addition

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: Out of three appeals filed by the assessee, one appeal is against the revision order of the CIT-II, Nagpur, dated 15.10.2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. Remaining two appeals are against respective orders of CIT(A)- II, Nagpur, both dated 10.02.2012 emanating from the regular assessment orders for the assessment years

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: Out of three appeals filed by the assessee, one appeal is against the revision order of the CIT-II, Nagpur, dated 15.10.2008 for the assessment year 2005-06. Remaining two appeals are against respective orders of CIT(A)- II, Nagpur, both dated 10.02.2012 emanating from the regular assessment orders for the assessment years