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

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

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

section 45(4) of the Act. Accordingly, in the hands of the assessee, the cost would have been ` 6,52,75,227, for the purpose of 9 Shri Deepak Gadge computing income as against a sum of ` 1,81,48,232, taken by the assessee for the purpose of computing capital gain

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

48,683/- during the previous year relevant to Asstt. Year 2015-2016 and shown book profit at Rs. 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

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

capital gain and to avoid paying the taxes, which is not related in the case of the assessee. The Assessing Officer relied on statement recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross examine has been granted to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not accepted the contention of the assessee and made addition under section

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

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

48,00,784 32,49,216 Capital Gain Less: Exemption: Under section 54 – ` 34,05,731 invested in Residential Property

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

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 taxed. A question arises as to whether the sales tax subsidy received from the State Government under the Scheme

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

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 taxed. A question arises as to whether the sales tax subsidy received from the State Government under the Scheme

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)

48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation of Rs. 53,52,000/- but not reflected the capital gain earned, in the income tax return and therefore, the Ld. AO by issuing show-cause notice asked the Assessee “as to why no income from long term capital gain on the sale of above property has not been reflected in the return

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

48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where- 4 Pretam Singh Charan Singh Gujjar ITA no.406/Nag./2023 (a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed 16[or assessable] by the stamp

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

48,45,771. 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

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

48,45,771. 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

VIRAMBHAI HARGOVANBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gain in terms of section 48 of the Act. In the present case, the Revenue has sought to justify

VIKAS GUPTA ,INDORE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

section 48 of the Income Tax Act contemplates mode of computation of long-term capital gain. It provides that from

SUBHASHCHAND CHANDAK (HUF),NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

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

48 for computation of Long Term Capital Gain, which is against the provision of law. 2. The Assessing Officer has not assumed proper jurisdiction u/s.148 to assess the assessee u/s.147 read with section

ANANT RAMRAO CHAVAN,AMRAVATI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AMRAVATI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

capital gain assessed at ` 96,90,000, and demand raised of ` 32,48,488, vide order passed under section 143(3) r/w section

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

48,30,000/-, despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged "field inquiry," without producing any supporting evidence

ALKESH SHARADRAOJI KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. A.O. WARD 3(4),NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

48,30,000/-, despite the difference being less than the tolerance limit of 5% prescribed under the proviso to section 50C. 6. Arbitrary Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981: The Assessing Officer erred in adopting the fair market value of 25,000/- per acre as on 01.04.1981 on the basis of an alleged "field inquiry," without producing any supporting evidence