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

45(5A) of the Act which is narrated below:– ―(5A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), where the capital gain arises to an assessee, being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, from the transfer of a capital asset, being land or building or both, under a specified agreement, the capital gains shall be chargeable to income

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

45; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase or construction, as the case may be, the cost shall be reduced by the amount of the capital gain. [ As per the above said amendment, in sub-section (1) to 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

section 10(38) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries –Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI ASHOK VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 45(1) of the Act, the transfer of capital asset would attract the capital gain tax, is not depend upon the receipt of consideration. Further, he argued that the CIT(A) erred in holding the assessee is correctly declared the capital gains on sale of immovable property in the A.Y. 2018-19 and supported the order

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI AJAY VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 45(1) of the Act, the transfer of capital asset would attract the capital gain tax, is not depend upon the receipt of consideration. Further, he argued that the CIT(A) erred in holding the assessee is correctly declared the capital gains on sale of immovable property in the A.Y. 2018-19 and supported the order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. AAKAR HOTELS, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

45 of the Income Tax Act,\n1961. Since the land lease from MIDC belongs to partners in the individual\ncapacity who are also partners in Aakar Hotel, the basic premise or basic of\ncharge for taxation of long term capital gains is not fulfilled. Further, nо\ntransfer of charge (lease land) can be attributed to transaction between Aakar\nHotels

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 was not intended to be restricted. Subsequently also when that section was replaced by section 115J, the object was to introduce the provision whereby every company will have to pay a minimum corporate tax on the profits declared by it in its own accounts. These profits can only be those which are assessable as income under

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

gains was not intended to be restricted. Subsequently also when that section was replaced by section 115J, the object was to introduce the provision whereby every company will have to pay a minimum corporate tax on the profits declared by it in its own accounts. These profits can only be those which are assessable as income under

ANIL SHANKAR PALEWAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.36/Nag/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Anil Shankar Palewar, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.219, Suyog Nagar, V Ward-5(1), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440015. S Pan: Abzpp 8221 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Smt. Rashmi Mathur – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 26/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax[Nfac], Delhi Dated 26.12.2021Under Section 250 Of The Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Ao Grossly Erred In Disallowing & The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Grossly Erred In Confirming The Denial Of Benefit Of Exemption Under Section 54Ec Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 As Claimed By The Appellant In His Return Of Income. The Exemption Under Section 54Ec Anil Shankar Palewar [A]

Capital Gain of Rs.71,15,365. 4) The Appellant claimed exemption under section 54F for an amount of Rs.24,78,917 which is accepted by the AO and is undisputed. 5) The Appellant invested an amount of Rs. 45

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

gain under section 45 of the Act, transfer of capital asset is sine qua non which is conspicuously absent here. Hence the entire addition of ` 1,11,50,582, is directed to be deleted. Thus, the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Capital Gain\" shownby the assessee.\n11. Considering the facts mentioned herein above, I have reason to believe that\nincome has escaped assessment and therefore consider this case fit for re-\nopening u/s 147 of the 1.T. Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2012-13.\n12. Issue Notice u/s 148 of the I.T, Act, 1961 for A.Y. 2012-13.\nDate: 05/01/2015

SHRI PRALHAD CHODHARY ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.164/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Pralhadchodhary, The Assistant Commissioner Choudhary Bhawan, V Of Income Tax, Central Sakkardara, S Circle-1(3), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440032. Pan: Ahepc0847Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Umang Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 18.03.2013 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 153C R.W.S143(3) Dated 29.12.2010 For A.Y.2007-08. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Shri Pralhad Chodhary [A]

section 45 of the Act and 5 Shri Pralhad Chodhary [A] hence no Long-Term Capital Gain Tax. Accordingly, appeal

DAYAL COTSPIN LIMITED,AKOLA vs. ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

Gain (LTCG). Please explain in detail all such modes employed by you for providing accommodation entries. Ans. Sir, The modes employed by me for providing accommodation entries against commission are as under: 1. Subscription to share capital at premium:- Sir, in such cases shares of the companies of clients/beneficiaries are subscribed at high premium by the companies floated/managed/controlled

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

45,771. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:– Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.227–228/Nag./2022 “During the appellate proceedings

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

45,771. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the first appellate authority. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the order passed by the Assessing Officer by observing as follows:– Shree Maya Real Estate Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.227–228/Nag./2022 “During the appellate proceedings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

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

45,81,283/ thus a total receipt of Rs.95,60,988/- against which total long term capital gain of Rs.94,60,988.70 has been claimed by assessee as exempt u/s 10(38) of IT Act 1961 in A.Y 2014-15. ii) The claim of the assessee of exempt LTCG amounting to Rs. 94,60,988.70/- was not allowed

JAGDISH KANHAIYALAL KHUSHALANI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

capital gain, thereby making the impugned addition after taking note of the sale consideration of ₹ 5,00,000/- received by the assessee as against the stamp duty valuation of ₹ 27,32,000/- mentioned by the assessee in the ITR. Thereafter assessee has filed an application u/s. 154 challenging such prima-facie adjustment, but failed to get any relief. In appeal

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

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 54 claimed by the assessee on new investment