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) of the Act. 4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries –Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise Not allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

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

section 10(38) of the Act.\n4. (2015) 281 CTR 241 (SC) Andaman Timber Industries -Vs- Commissioner Of Central Excise\nNot allowing assessee to cross-examine witnesses by adjudicating authority though statements of those witnesses were made as basis of impugned order, amounted in serious flaw which make impugned order nullity as it amounted to violation of principles of natural

SHRI RAJESH DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

54F of the Act. 4. The assessee has sold the property located at Kamptee and surplus arising on sale was shown as long term capital gain. The assessee has constructed the residential house and claimed exemption 4 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani in respect of long term capital gain under section

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 gains are concerned. The word "assessee" must be given wide and liberal interpretation so as to include his legal heirs also. There is no warrant for giving too strict an interpretation to the word "assessee" as that would frustrate the object of granting exemption. 11. We also find judgments of other High Courts giving benefit of Section 54F

ITO- (INTERNATION TAXATION),, NAGPUR vs. SMT. URMILA SHARAN RAMPAL,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

capital gain on sale of shares. 2. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Nagpur erred in allowing deduction under section 54F

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

capital gains on investment in the residential property as prescribed under 3 the provisions of section 54F of the Act. The claim

SHRI DHIRAJ RAMBHAU LINGADE L/H OF LATE SMT. MEENAKSHI RAMBHAU MLINGADE,,BULDHANA vs. A.C.I.T. , AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhiraj Rambhau Lingade Vs. The Acit L/H Of Late Smt. Meenakshi Rambhau Lingade Akola Circle Buldhana Akola Pan No.:Abopl 3689 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S.C. Thakar, Adv. Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M.

section 54F. i. The Appellant accordingly then sold a large chunk of the plot in the impugned Financial Year (“FY”) for a total consideration of Rs. 83,72,000/- Long Term Capital Gains

SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

section 54F of the Act amounting to ` 42,44,846 and after deducting indexed cost of acquisition, had offered ` 38,48,320 as taxable long term capital gain

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

54F, being investment made in\n\"Capital Gain Scheme” for an amount of Rs. 15,78,88.855/-\n4.\nThe assessee, had applied for withdrawal of sum deposited in \"Capital Gain\nScheme\", vide letter dated NIL, submitted on 09/05/2013. The assessee also\nfiled a grievance petition to the then the CIT-I, Nagpur, who in turn forwarded\nthe same to this

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 of Rs.71,15,365. 4) The Appellant claimed exemption under section 54F for an amount of Rs.24,78,917 which

SHRI AJITKUMAR BADRIPRASAD BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

54F. Such exemption was claimed by assessee in respect of long term capital gain which was earned on sale of immovable property at District Sitamarhi, Bihar. The assessee invested capital gain in purchase of two adjoining / adjacent flat and claimed exemption under section

MAHESHKUMAR BADRIBISHAL BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

54F. Such exemption was claimed by assessee in respect of long term capital gain which was earned on sale of immovable property at District Sitamarhi, Bihar. The assessee invested capital gain in purchase of two adjoining / adjacent flat and claimed exemption under section

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

section 54 by making investment of Rs.17,00,000 in construction of new residential property at Janaki Nagar, within prescribed period of time. The capital gains computation as per assessee is as under: 2.1 Particulars Amount Amount Sale of Residential Property 14,50,000.00 a. Consideration Received 20,56,000.00 20,56,000.00 b. Stamp Valuation U/s 54C (Whichever

SHRI JAGDISH SUBHARAM CHITADE vs. A.C.I.T CIR.-3, NAGPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.483/Nag/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jagdish Subharam Chitade, The Assistant H.No.36, Godhani Bokhara, Dist. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Nagpur. Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur. Pan: Asppc 6752 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 15/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2012-13 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-2, Nagpur’S Dated 09.05.2016 In Case No.Cit(A)-2/111/2015-16, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains of Rs.16,27,806/- followed by section 54B and section 54F deductions; as the case may be. There

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..

54F of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. Brief facts of the case are as under : The AO in the course of assessment proceedings noticed that the assessee has shown the long term capital gains of Rs.1,06,11,152/- on sale of plot of civil lines known as Rajakothi, Nagpur. The AO in his order has stated that the assessee

SYED NAZIM MOINUDDIN QUAZI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

section 143(3)r.w.s144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) was justified in affirming the additions made by the learned AO pertaining to addition of the entire sale consideration

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 gain arising and claimed the exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The assessee claimed that it has constructed the house before September 2012 but the AO stated that the assessee has not complied with the conditions of section

PRAKASH SHESHRAO WANKHEDE,KORADI KAMPTEE, NAGPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

capital gain & without giving benetit of cost of acquisition by the Ld. AO in the absence of purchase deed while the assessee had specifically stated that he had inherited the ancestral property alongwith his 2 sisters & 3 legal heir of brother. 4. The Ld. AO could have called for the valuation of said land from DVO or any other registered