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

section 50C is not applicable. 2. Without prejudice to above, the computation of capital gain done by AO and confirmed

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

2 per cent of the actual sale consideration, we find no reason for rejecting actual sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed for determining long term capital gain. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt actual sale consideration as mentioned in the Sale Deed as a fair market

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

2 per cent of the actual sale consideration, we find no reason for rejecting actual sale consideration mentioned in the Sale Deed for determining long term capital gain. Accordingly, the ground No.1 raised in appeal by the assessee is allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to adopt actual sale consideration as mentioned in the Sale Deed as a fair market

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

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C of the act. No contrary view to this finding has been offered by the revenue. 13. Therefore, this issue is restored back to the files of the AO, with a direction to re-compute the capital gain, considering sale consideration as on the date of transfer of property on the date of agreement to sale. Consequently, the plea

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

2) ought to have been considered in this search assessment under section 153A, but this proposition harbored by the ld. PCIT is contrary to the position of law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. It is pertinent to note that section 48 of the Income Tax Act contemplates mode of computation of long-term capital gain. It provides

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

section 50C of the Act is to substitute the value adopted by a Stamp Valuation Authority as the full value of consideration in cases where the actual consideration received or accruing to an assessee is lower than the value assessed by the Stamp Valuation Authority. In other words, in such situations, the value determined by the Stamp Valuation Authority

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

2) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of flat. The addition so enhanced is illegal invalid and deserves to be deleted in the interest of justice. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing

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

2) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of flat. The addition so enhanced is illegal invalid and deserves to be deleted in the interest of justice. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing

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

2) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of flat. The addition so enhanced is illegal invalid and deserves to be deleted in the interest of justice. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing

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

2) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by an amount of Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of flat. The addition so enhanced is illegal invalid and deserves to be deleted in the interest of justice. 3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing

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

2. Without prejudice to above, the notice and proceedings u/s 263 are invalid as the order passed by AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 3. The ld.AO having examined the claim of the appellant in relation to the Long Term Capital Gains and further made an addition of Rs.15

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

2 Sima Ravisingh Kachhawah ITA no.418/NAG./2025 144/144B and the consequential order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which are illegal, invalid and bad in law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the matter on merits and without proper appreciation of the facts

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(2

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

50C of the Act. The decision given by the H'ble Allahabad High Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be applied in this case. In the assessment order, the AO has emphasised that provisions of section 142A(2) of the Act have been amended by the Finance Act, 2014, and as per the amended provisions, the AO can make

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

50C of the Act. The decision given by the H'ble Allahabad High Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be applied in this case. In the assessment order, the AO has emphasised that provisions of section 142A(2) of the Act have been amended by the Finance Act, 2014, and as per the amended provisions, the AO can make

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

50C of the Act. The decision given by the H'ble Allahabad High Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be applied in this case. In the assessment order, the AO has emphasised that provisions of section 142A(2) of the Act have been amended by the Finance Act, 2014, and as per the amended provisions, the AO can make

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

50C of the Act. The decision given by the H'ble Allahabad High Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be applied in this case. In the assessment order, the AO has emphasised that provisions of section 142A(2) of the Act have been amended by the Finance Act, 2014, and as per the amended provisions, the AO can make