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

capital gains by invoking section 50C, which amounts to double taxation. Section 14 of the Act clearly demonstrates heads of income

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

Capital Gains is warranted. The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are accordingly, set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.” It would be relevant to mention here that the aforementioned decision was rendered with reference to provisions of Section 50C

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

Capital Gains is warranted. The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are accordingly, set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.” It would be relevant to mention here that the aforementioned decision was rendered with reference to provisions of Section 50C

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Section 50C for the purpose of computing the capital gain because that is what is relevant for the purpose of computing

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

gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital

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

gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital

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

gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital

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

gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital

SIMA RAVISINGH KACHHAWAH,UMRER vs. ITO WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalesima Ravisingh Kachhawah, Girad Road, Om Nagar Umrer, ……………. Appellant Nagpur- 441203 Maharastra, Pan – Aqmpk2899K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.D.P. Lohiya.Ar Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

Section 50C as Long-Term Capital Gain and the claimed deduction under Section 80C was disallowed on assumption basis. The additions

MANOJ SHANKARRAO BHAGAT,,YAVATMAL vs. ITO-WARD-1,, AMARAVATI

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

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhmanoj Shankarrao Bhagat, Vs Ito, Plot No.41, Vaishali Colony, Ward–1, Nandurkar College Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Yavatmal–444602. Ambapeth, Amaravati. Pan–Ahppb6610F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.R.K.Baral, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 08.03.2018

50C(2) of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised following two grounds:- 1. “That the learned Income Tax Officer grossly erred in making additions as short term capital gains amounting to Rs.4,43,00,000/-. 2. That the addition of short term capital gains in view of section

LAXMAN PANDURANG DUDHE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL C.I.T. -2, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

Capital Gain as under :- Total sale consideration as per section 50C : Rs.1,70,00,000/- As per details submitted by you : Rs.19

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 invoking of section 50C

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. 4. Without prejudice to Ground number 3 above, the assessee submits that, the learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred in not referring the valuation of the property sold i.e situated at Shanti Nagar, Nagpur to DVO as per section 50C

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)

capital gain’. 3 The Ld. AO, ultimately, by considering the sale consideration of the property at Rs. 53,52,000/- as per stamp duty valuation in view of section 50C

FATTESING PUNAJI DHABRE,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX – 2, NAGPUR

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Fattesing Punaji Dhabre Pcit – 2, Nagpur Plot No. 132, Chandan Nagar, Post Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Hanuman Nagar, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440009. [Pan: Bacpd6505Q] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Madhav Vichare, Ca Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 17.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

50C of Income Tax Act. The assessee has adopted cost of acquisition of said asset at `. 10,00,000/– as on 01.04.2021 in supporting evidence which remains unverified. The ld. PCIT further noted that assessee claimed exemption for purchase of two agriculture lands at Sonegaon for `. 32,00,000/– on 28.12.2010 and for `. 18,00,000/– on 12.03.2010. The agriculture

PAWAN 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

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 or comparable sale instances, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same mechanically. 7. Invalidity of Assessment Order

LATA SHARADRAO KHADSE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WD3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadale

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 or comparable sale instances, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same mechanically. 7. Invalidity of Assessment Order

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

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 or comparable sale instances, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the same mechanically. 7. Invalidity of Assessment Order