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 by CIT(A) is incorrect, since while calculating the capital gain on sale of land to M/s Vedbhumi Builders, the cost of acquisition of different land is deducted from the sale price. 3

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

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

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

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. Thus, the stamp duty value as on date of initial agreement in the year 2010 can be adopted for the purpose of Sale consideration". 7. In view of the above discussion, I direct the A.O to compute capital gain by taking stamp duty value as on date entering agreement in the year

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

3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

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

3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

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

3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

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

3) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant by Rs. 11,18,783 on account of long-term capital gains on sale of Flat without giving the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition which is illegal, and which deserves to be allowed in the interest of justice. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

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

3) read with Section 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer computed the Long Term Capital Gain as under :- Total sale consideration as per section 50C

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

50C as long-term capital gain. The assessee had already disclosed the entire transaction value of sales, amounting to Rs. 10,25,470 plus Rs. 23,00,000 (stamp duty valuation), in the return of income filed in response to notice under Section 148, therefore the addition confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC is illegal, invalid

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

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) for A.Y. 2009-10 vide his order dated 28.12.2011. 2. The only issue in this appeal of the assessee is against the order of Ld.CIT(A) confirming the action of the AO in making addition of short term capital gain without referring the same D.V.O in terms 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

3 in para 4 of his order. In the show cause notice, the ld. PCIT recorded that assessee has sold ancestral agriculture land at Vela, Harishchandra Taluka Nagpur (Rural) District Nagpur for `. 70,00,000/– on 01.02.2011. As per sale deed, the market value of Fattesing Punaji Dhabre property was of `. 1.20 crore. The assessee while filing return of income

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

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

SHRI GANESH UMRAOSINGH SINGHAL,NAGPUR vs. I.T.O. WARD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result the appeal by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya. (S.M.C.)

capital gains on sale of plot of land. 3. The learned AO erred in applying provisions of section 50C in a mechanical

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

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

3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, National Tax Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme

DY.C.I.T. CIR 1, NAGPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN B. AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

3 years, therefore, the transaction in question qualifies to be a long term transaction as against the short term capital gain transaction determined by the AO. I, therefore, decline to agree with the version of the AO, treating the transaction as short term capital transaction. It is also significant to mention that the learned