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

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(1

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

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.

1,00,85,013/- made by the AO as income under the head business and profession rightly declared as income under the head capital gains. 2 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered (i) intention of the assessee (ii) period of holding (iii) consistency in treating

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 as well. 2.2 The AO treated the transaction of sale of plot as trading income on various grounds enumerated at para 3.3 of the assessment order, a view which has been confirmed by the first appellate authority. 2.3 The Ld. AR during the course of hearing strongly opposed the action of the AO of treating the transaction

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

capital gain in purchase of two adjoining / adjacent flat and claimed exemption under section 54F. The assessing officer allowed exemption in respect of only one flat and disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer

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

capital gain in purchase of two adjoining / adjacent flat and claimed exemption under section 54F. The assessing officer allowed exemption in respect of only one flat and disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of assessing officer

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 is accepted by the AO and is undisputed. 5) The Appellant invested an amount of Rs. 45,00,000 under section 54EC Bonds and claimed exemption under section 54EC of the Act. The amount invested is as under

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

54F (As discussed above as per Valuation report of empanelled Income Tax 14,81,500.00 Valuer) 19/11/2007 to 31.07.2008 Net Taxable Long term 73,041.00 Capital Gain Reference to DVO for calculating fair market value of property sold of 2.2 Shanti Nagar  During the period assesseee had sold his inherited residential property on 06.11.2007 for Rs. 14,50,000/-, such

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”].

1) The CIT (A) ought to have seen that Agricultural land sold by Appellant, does not fall under the definition of Capital Assets as such not chargable under the head Income from Capital Gain. 2) The A.O. without any justification or valid reason has not taken value of the land at Rs. 2,22,453/- as valued by Appellant, rather

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

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

KUNDA GAYAKWAD,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shripavan Kumar Gadalekunda Mahadev Gayakwad, Plot.No.B-60, Murlidhar Society, Koradi Road, ……………. Appellant Nagpur 441111, Maharashtra. Pan – Cpmpg5995R V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Shri.Madhao Vichore.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. D.R.

Capital Gain. 2 Kunda Gayakwad ITA no.403/Nag./2025 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the deduction under section 54 of Income Tax Act, 1961 since the Assessee has not filed Income Tax Return. 3. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, Commissioner of Income

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

section 54F of the Act was not allowable in view of the short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain