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

5 introduction of capital was called. (P-2) [Vol.- III) ii) At page 6 capital gain is derived from immovable property was submitted and explained at the time of hearing. iii) At page 65 66 computation of capital gain is fully disclosed. iv) At page 92 specific query of capital gain is explained. v) At page 95 details of stamp

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant has bought and sold these

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant has bought and sold these

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

section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant has bought and sold these

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

2,15,00,000, on 18/07/2016. The assessee had computed income from capital gains of ` 1,58,64,162, and claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act amounting to ` 1,58,64,162. The assessee had invested the net sale consideration in construction of residential house on 6th floor of his existing premises. 5

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

2) of the Act was issued and served on ITBA. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/06/2019. In response to notice issued, the details called for were uploaded. The assessee filed Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, etc. Various details were called for electronically vide notices under 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

2) of the Act was issued and served on ITBA. Notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 06/06/2019. In response to notice issued, the details called for were uploaded. The assessee filed Income Tax Return, Computation of Income, Balance Sheet, Tax Audit Report, etc. Various details were called for electronically vide notices under section

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

2,25,90,000/- 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. 8,34,77,850/- as against the returned income of Rs. 7,90,46,080/-. While framing the order, the A.O. assessed income from aforesaid transactions as Income from Business as against income

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of subsection (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect of the transfer

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

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. 5.2 During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant vide letter dated 03.11.2022 has submitted as under; Ground no 2 & 3: The assess, se owned a residential flat at 62, Neelkamal, Bajaj Nagar, Nagpur in addition to 2 units at 11 & 12, Shri Venkatesh Krupa Enclave, Panjari, Nagpur

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

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

gainfully reproduce as below\nfrom Writ Petition No. 3057 of 2019, Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of\nSejal Jewellary & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors.\n“16. On a plain reading of Section 153A, it is clear that it begins with a\n‘nonobstante' clause, when it provides that notwithstanding anything\ncontained in section 139, section

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

5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The solitary issue raised in the appeal by the assessee is against the addition of Rs.10,38,000/- on account of difference in Long Term Capital Gain declared by the assessee and computed by the Assessing Officer after considering

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal for the A

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

gains of business attributable to the business of providing banking and credit facilities to the members of society. Therefore, even if certain expenses are disallowed, it will result in increase in gross taxable income and deduction under section 80P, would be allowable on 100% of such gross taxable income. 5.5 This jurisprudence is also endorsed by the Pune Tribunal

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

capital gain under section 10(38) could not be bogus in absence of any contrary evidence brought on record. The aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has been upheld by Hon’ble Supreme Court in PCIT Vs Divyaben Prafulchandra Pramar (2025) 172 taxmann.com 572 (SC). 15. The ld. Sr DR for the revenue while making his submissions strongly

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