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

64,68,624/- as genuine, when SEBI had imposed fine on the assessee for disclosure lapses with regard to trading in the shares of Pro Fin Capital Services Ltd. and the observation of the Assessing Officer that, what is apparent cannot be considered as real in the case of the assessee as the assessee had exhibited behavior of associating himself

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

64,68,624/- as genuine, when SEBI had imposed fine on the assessee for disclosure lapses with regard to trading in the shares of Pro Fin Capital Services Ltd. and the observation of the Assessing Officer that, what is apparent cannot be considered as real in the case of the assessee as the assessee had exhibited behavior of associating himself

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

section 68 was not proper.” These judgements make it amply clear that the receipts that have already been shown by the assessee as income in the books of accounts/original returns and returns filed u/s 153A also cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits u/s 68. In the circumstances of the case and in view of aforecited judgements. I hold that

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

section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is respectfully submitted that no business activities were required to be carried on in respect of assets sold under consideration as the project was almost complete in all respects as on 31/03/2012 and as such it cannot be even presumed that appellant has converted his capital assets into stock

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

capital gain and to avoid paying the taxes, which is not related in the case of the assessee. The 6 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 Assessing Officer relied on statement recorded behind the back of the assessee and no opportunity to cross examine has been granted to the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not accepted

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

section 148 of the Act, assessee filed NIL return of income for the year under consideration i.e. A. Y. 2016-17. Assessing Officer concluded the assessment vide assessment order dated 24.08.2021 and assessed total income at Rs.2,67,14,897/- by making addition of Rs.2,67,14,897/- on account of Long Term Capital Gain (In short “LTCG”) arising

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.

64,470/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3, Nagpur (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.12.2017 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.1,01,58,080/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

64 of Rs.51,21,325/- against the current year’s taxable capital gain of Rs.18,56,944/-. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted this is the case where assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 11.08.2006 allowing the said claim

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

64 of Rs.51,21,325/- against the current year’s taxable capital gain of Rs.18,56,944/-. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted this is the case where assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 11.08.2006 allowing the said claim

ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

64 of Rs.51,21,325/- against the current year’s taxable capital gain of Rs.18,56,944/-. 4. Before us, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted this is the case where assessment was originally completed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 11.08.2006 allowing the said claim

RAMESHCHANDRA RAMDHAN AGRAWAL,AKOLA vs. ITO, WARD- 1, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital gain at Rs. 12,64,331/- as against declared value in the return at Rs. 52,258/-. In this case, there has been a reference by the ld. A.O to the D.V.O u/s 55A of the Act for determining the value of property concerned. It is the contention of the assessee that they had adopted the value which

SMS TOLLS AND DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed in terms indicated above

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

capital gains is not to wait for the end of the previous year. Similarly, there can be income from other sources also such as receipt of dividend income or interest which may not have to wait for determination at the end of the year. Similarly, some subsidy may be received from the Government which may be taxable on receipt basis

POONAM RAJKUMAR DIWANKA,NAGPUR vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

section 263 of the Act, the Assessing Officer, passed order on 24/02/2025, against which the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A), who, vide order dated 30/05/2025, deleted the addition of ` 64,42,400, on account of long term capital gain

DY COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX , CIRCLE -2, NAGPUR vs. M/S N KUMAR CONSTRUCTION CO .PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

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

64 of Paper Book. M/s. N. Kumar Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Assessment Year 2012–13 iv. So far as the bank statement of Avance Technologies Limited showing the transfer of funds is concerned, the assessee encloses herewith the copy of Bank Statement of Avance Technologies Limited, which is on Page-75 of Paper Book alongwith Copy of account of Avance

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

64,83,340/-, 'Nil', 27,95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

64,83,340/-, 'Nil', 27,95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

64,83,340/-, 'Nil', 27,95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

64,83,340/-, 'Nil', 27,95,19, 170/-, for A.Yrs. 2011-12, 2012- 13 & 2013-14 respectively. The assessee is a firm engaged in a business of development of real estate. An Action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of Bajoria- Agrawal group on 02/12/2014. During the course of search action, various