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 is invested in purchasing a residential house or constructing the residential house within the time stipulated therein. Proviso to sub section (1) states that the exemption contemplated under sub section (1) would not be available where an assessee owns a residential house as on the date of the transfer and that the income from the residential house

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

69, 69B or 69D is like an open ended hypothesis which is not supported by any specific finding that the matter shall fall under which of the specific sections and how the conditions stated therein are satisfied before the said provisions are invoked. It is like laying a general rule, which to our mind is beyond the mandate

RUPESH LALDAS DHAKATE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -1, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

69. B) Section 50C (1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital 3 Shri Rupesh Laldas Dhakate ITA no.185/Nag./2025 asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable by any authority of a State

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)

section 50C of the Act and while deducting the indexed cost of acquisition of plot to the tune of Rs. 1,33,284/- and other expenses claimed to the tune of Rs. 2,67,863/- by the Assessee, ultimately determined long term capital gain of Rs. 49,69

ITO, WARD- 4,, CHANDRAPUR vs. M/S. K.S.R. TRANSPORT COMPANY,, CHANDRAPUR

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Assistant M/S.Ksr Transport, Commissioner Of Income V Padoli Chadda Building, Tax, Chandrapur Circle, S Kosara Road, Chandrapur. Chandrapur. Pan: Aabfk3222D Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Cross Objection No.02/Nag/2020 (Arising Out Of Ita No.364/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S.Ksr Transport, The Assistant Padoli Chadda Building, V Commissioner Of Income Kosara Road, Chandrapur. S Tax, Chandrapur Circle, Pan: Aabfk3222D Chandrapur. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Mukesh Agrawal – Ar Revenue By Shri Abhay Y. Marathe – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 30/11/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 09/01/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)-2, Nagpur Dated 28.08.2019 Emanating From

capital gain taxable u/s 50 of the IT Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(Appeal) was right in ignoring the fact that additions made u/s 68 in the original assessment are altogether different from the addition made u/s 50 or 41(2) of the Income

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

69,30,925, as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Against this addition, the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 6. The matter was agitated before the learned CIT(A), who did not find favour with the arguments of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by holding as follows

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee' appeal for A

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1) was filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation u/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search action u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in the case

RAVINDRA MADANLAL KHANDELWAL,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT CIRCLE , AKOLA

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

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

gain. Therefore such an advance was clearly given by the assessee for the purpose of commercial expediency. • 4.4 As far as interest expenses vis-a- vis section 57 is concerned. The assessee wishes to submit that, the section 57(iii), lays down 17 Ravindra Madanlal Khandelwal ITA no.375/Nag./2024 following conditions for claim of expenditure. o The expenditure must have

SHRI SANJAY DHANRAJ JAIN,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), NAGPUR

gains and interest etc. The return of income u/s. 139(1)\nwas filed on 17-02-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 10,36,730/-. Intimation\nu/s. 143(1) was issued on 7-6-2012 accepting the returned income. A search\naction u/s. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 26-7-2016 in\nthe case

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

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

capital gains; view of the Tribunal in allowing the assessee‘s appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with.‖ 17 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y. 2012–13 10. The learned Counsel further submitted that the issue is also covered by the following case laws of the Hon’ble High Court

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nagpur [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the department are as follows: [1] The learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the impugned order dated 30.03.2022 u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 B without

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

69,520/- on account of expenses claimed. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made out of expenditure claimed of Rs. 73,11,786/-on account of bad debts &EMD lapsed. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restricting

A,C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.- 2(2), NAGPUR vs. SHRI DHARAMPAL R.AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

69,520/- on account of expenses claimed. iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made out of expenditure claimed of Rs. 73,11,786/-on account of bad debts &EMD lapsed. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) erred in restricting

YRCE EDUCATE PVT. LTD,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), NAGPUR

69 of the PB which contains information\nobtained by Smt. Neetu Nayyar from Central Public Information Officer who\nis none other than the Id Addl.CIT, Central Range-S, New Delhi, under RTI\nAct, wherein, it reveals that the Id Addl.CIT had granted approval for 43\ncases on 30-12-18 itself. This fact is not in dispute before

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

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as unexplained investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt

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

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as unexplained investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt

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

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

69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") as unexplained investment / deposit in cash and/or by cheques in bank account, etc., and (ii) by estimating income of construction business of M/s.Maria Construction. With regard to assessee's travel business of M.B. Travels also, the Assessing Officer made two types of addition – (i) on account of alleged unexplained deposit/receipt