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

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

gains' is that there should be a capital asset, Then the capital asset is to be transferred within the meaning of section 2(47) of the Act and it is chargeable to tax as per section 45 of the Act. xiii. Here Sec 2(47) of IT Act is quoted below for reference :- Section 2(47) in The Income

SHRI PRALHAD CHODHARY ,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.164/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shri Pralhadchodhary, The Assistant Commissioner Choudhary Bhawan, V Of Income Tax, Central Sakkardara, S Circle-1(3), Nagpur. Nagpur – 440032. Pan: Ahepc0847Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Umang Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 23/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 25/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nagpur Dated 18.03.2013 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 153C R.W.S143(3) Dated 29.12.2010 For A.Y.2007-08. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Shri Pralhad Chodhary [A]

section 153C r.w.s143(3) dated 29.12.2010 for A.Y.2007-08. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as under : Shri Pralhad Chodhary [A] “1. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the capital gain arose u/s 2(47)(v) of Income Tax Act during the PY 2006-07 in respect of the transfer of the land mentioned

SHRI SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SASAN, L/H OF LATE SHRI JAGDISH SINGH SASAN,NAGPUR vs. THE ITO-WARD-2(2),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhsh. Gurvinder Singh Sasan, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Sh. Jagdish Singh Sasan, Ward–2(2), C/O–Kasjmir Bar & Restaurant, 3Ed Floor, Ayakar Gaddogudam Chowk, Nagpur–440001. Bhawan, Nagpur Pan–Aeyps3694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Jitesh Kumar Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

capital gains which was earned by the assessee. The word “purchase” can be given both restrictive and wider 8. meaning. A restrictive meaning would mean transactions by which legal title is finally transferred, like execution of the sale deed or any other document of title “Purchase” can also refer to payment of consideration or part consideration along with transfer

SUDHAKAR ATMARAM TIPLE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-3, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shrivikram Singh Yadav & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S

capital gains in the hands of the assessee by invoking provisions of section 50C of the I.T.Act 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case both the A.O and the CIT(A)-19, Mumbai erred in not considering the provisions of section 53A