DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Capital Gain to Beneficiaries. It is submitted that none of the observations referred to in Chapter 6 of the report are directly or indirectly applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessment order dose not refer to any indulgence of the assessee in any of the activities described in Chapter 6 and hence the case of the assessee

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

Capital Gain to Beneficiaries. It is submitted that none of the observations referred to in Chapter 6 of the report are directly or indirectly applicable in the case of the assessee. The assessment order dose not refer to any indulgence of the assessee in any of the activities described in Chapter 6 and hence the case of the assessee

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

capital gain and deductions claimed u/s 80C; xi) Reply to ITO, Ward–2, Amravati dated 20/09/2018; xii) Copy of bank statements and working sheet to explain payment of cost of improvement; xiii) Copy of sample bills & ledger account; 7 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh ITAno.76/Nag./2022 xiv) Notice for hearing dated 16/02/2022; xv) Assessment order u/s 143(3) r/w section 263 r/w section 144B

SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

Section 54 in FY 2014-15. 4.17 Most importantly, the assessee has himself claimed in his reply dated 25.12.2019. In your Show Cause Notice, you had pointed out that I had started the Construction work of new residential house long before the capital gain arise. It is not the fact. I had constructed the house at 6

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

6,85,03,200/- Less : Indexed Cost of Acquisition Rs. 2,25,90,000/- Capital Gain Rs. 4,59,13,200/- Income tax Officer vide order under section

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) were being misused by the beneficiaries of bogus long term capital gain and to avoid paying the taxes, which is not related in the case of the assessee. The 6

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

gains.\n14. I.T.A. No. 79/Nag/2010 (ITAT, Nagpur) Plastic Surge Industries Pvt Ltd -Vs- Asstt Commissioner of Income Tax\n15. I.T.A. No. 6429/Mum/2009 (ITAT, Mumbai) Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax –Vs- Naishadh V. Vachharajani\n16. I.T.A. No. 961/Mum/2010 (ITAT, Mumbai) Nagindas P. Sheth (HUF) –Vs- ACIT\n17. (2006) 6 SOT 0247 (ITAT, Mumbai) Mukesh R. Marolia -Vs- Additional Commissioner Of Income

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

capital gain. [ As per the above said amendment, in sub-section (1) to section 54 of the Act, for the words “constructed, a residential house”, the words “constructed, one residential house” have been substituted w.e.f. 01.04.2015. 5.3.2 In the present case, the assessee purchased more than one residential flat vide two different sale deeds, i.e. two flats and claimed deduction

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

gain on sale of shares of Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. and Premier Capital Services Ltd. is genuine, the assessee has Rajesh Sarda (AY2015-16) ITA 44/Nag/2022 furnished complete documentary evidence during the assessment which includes Sauda Summary Report, copy of client ID, allotment letter of shares, consent letter of assessee, contract notes of Premier Capital Securities Ltd., purchase of share

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

6. By considering above, the issue for our consideration is as to whether the brought forward business loss could be set off against the capital gain earned on sale of depreciable assets for the year under consideration or not. In the present case, the assessee sought set off of brought forward business loss for A.Y. 2013-14 against the capital

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

capital gains in the interest of justice. 5) Under any case, the fair market value of the Flat sold being the price at which the property has been sold by the Appellant, the valuation under section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6

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

capital gains in the interest of justice. 5) Under any case, the fair market value of the Flat sold being the price at which the property has been sold by the Appellant, the valuation under section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6

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

capital gains in the interest of justice. 5) Under any case, the fair market value of the Flat sold being the price at which the property has been sold by the Appellant, the valuation under section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6

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

capital gains in the interest of justice. 5) Under any case, the fair market value of the Flat sold being the price at which the property has been sold by the Appellant, the valuation under section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI ASHOK VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

6, 7 and 9. He vehemently argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions u/s. 2(47) r.w.s. 45 which indicates that the capital gain is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered. He submits that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in terms of section

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI AJAY VASANTRAI TRIVEDI , NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

6, 7 and 9. He vehemently argued that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the provisions u/s. 2(47) r.w.s. 45 which indicates that the capital gain is taxable in the year in which such transactions are entered. He submits that the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that in terms of section

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

6. Here, it would be relevant to mention that the Finance Act 2018 has inserted a proviso to sub-section (1) of section 43CA providing 5% tolerance limit in variation between declared sale consideration vis-a-vis stamp duty value for making no addition. Similar proviso was inserted by the Finance Act 2018 to sub-section (1) to section

ECONOMIC EXPLOSIVES LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESSMENT CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal for the assessment year 2018–19 filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

6 ITC 178) (PC); CIT v P. K. Das (34 ITR 729) (Cal.); CIT v Pran Jiban Jaitha (52 ITR 108) (Cal.); and Chibbett v Joseph (9 TC 48). Taxability of income and capital receipt: The income of a previous year is always subject to tax in the assessment year. Thus, income is always taxable unless exempted. However, the capital