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

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. The Assessing Officer referred to the provisions of section 54F and observed that the deduction is allowable

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(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is respectfully submitted that no business activities were required to be carried on in respect of assets sold under consideration as the project was almost complete in all respects as on 31/03/2012 and as such it cannot be even presumed that appellant has converted his capital assets into stock

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) were being misused by the beneficiaries of bogus long term capital gain and to avoid paying taxes and have also been forwarded the details of transactions entered into by the assessee. The learned assessing officer has not any provided the details forwarded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta as well as statement of persons, whose statement were recorded during

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

section 10(38) were being misused by the beneficiaries of bogus long term capital gain and to avoid paying taxes and have also been forwarded the details of transactions entered into by the assessee. The learned assessing officer has not any provided the details forwarded by Investigation Wing, Kolkatta as well as statement of persons, whose statement were recorded during

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 is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CHANDRAPUR CIRCLE , CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S CHADDA TRANSPORT , CHANDRAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Chadda Transport, Commissioner Of V Kosara Road, Padoli, Income Tax, S Chandrapur, Chandrapur Circle, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.01/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.363/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Chadda Transport, The Assistant Kosara Road, Padoli, V Commissioner Of Income Chandrapur, S Tax, Maharashtra – 442401. Chandrapur Circle, Chandrapur. Pan: Aaafc8556F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Mrathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/12/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am:

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 21.09.2016 for A.Y.2009-10. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,90,22,977/- made by the AO as capital gain taxable u/s 50

ITO, WARD- 4,, CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S. K.S.R. TRANSPORT COMPANY,, CHANDRAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Ksr Transport, Commissioner Of Income V Padoli Chadda Building, Tax, Chandrapur Circle, S Kosara Road, Chandrapur. Chandrapur. Pan: Aabfk3222D Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.02/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.364/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Ksr Transport, The Assistant Padoli Chadda Building, V Commissioner Of Income Kosara Road, Chandrapur. S Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Pan: Aabfk3222D Chandrapur. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Nagpur Dated 28.08.2019 Emanating From

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 21.09.2016 for A.Y.2009-10. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are as under : “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs 2,31,89,907/- made by the AO as capital gain taxable u/s 50

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

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

50,000. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished his reply along with its enclosures. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of assessee’s reply, it was observed that the assessee has sold the said immovable property during the year under consideration and worked out capital gain

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

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 on sale of land with respect to investments of Rs 12,50,000/- and Rs 37,50,000/- made on 3.8.2007 and 27.10.2007 respectively. Section

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

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

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)

section 50C of the Act and while deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of plot to the tune of Rs. 1,33,284/- and other expenses claimed to the tune of Rs. 2,67,863/- by the Assessee, ultimately determined long term capital gain of Rs. 49,69,430/- and consequently made the addition of such amount by disallowing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act\n1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is\nunjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for\nnot allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of\nredemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

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

capital gains under this anti-avoidance provision. In our humble understanding, it is a case of a curative amendment to take care of unintended consequences of the scheme of Section 50C. It makes perfect sense, and truly reflects a very pragmatic approach full of compassion and fairness, that just because there is a small variation between the stated sale consideration

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

50,00,000/-. The difference between the two, i.e., Rs.57,68,020/– is more than 10% of the actual sale consideration and therefore the appellant's case clearly falls under the purview of section 43CA of the Act. In the written submission filed by the appellant's AR, it has been argued that section 43CA cannot be applied

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

50,00,000/-. The difference between the two, i.e., Rs.57,68,020/– is more than 10% of the actual sale consideration and therefore the appellant's case clearly falls under the purview of section 43CA of the Act. In the written submission filed by the appellant's AR, it has been argued that section 43CA cannot be applied