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

94,000 to Smt. Usha S. Shah (Shah Group). The shares were purchased in the month of February 2006 @ ` 10 per share totaling to the tune of ` 2,91,310. The assessee sold the shares on 29th March 2009 (in the 13th month), therefore, the assessee shown gain from the sale of shares as long term capital gain. The assessee

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

section 50C(1) of the Act must be held to be effective from 1st April 2003, and the same is applicable retrospectively. 9. The learned A.R., in support of his arguments, relied upon the following judicial pronouncements:– 7 Pretam Singh Charan Singh Gujjar ITA no.406/Nag./2023 i) ITO v/s Rustom Fali Mehta, [2023] TaxPub(DT) 2721 (Mum- Trib

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

7. CIT vsModi Olivetti Ltd. (2013) 94 DTR 398 (All.) 8. Empire Jute Co.Ltd. vs CIT 124 ITR 001 (SC) 9. FineJewellery (India) Ltd. Vs ACIT (2012)19 ITR (Trib) 746 (Mumb) Thus, the ld. AR supported the order of the ld,CIT(A) and submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the additions made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

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

94,60,988.70/- was not allowed by the assessing officer and the amount of Rs. 4 Shri Sanjay Gaurishankar Agrawal ITA no.109/Nag./2019 95,60,988.70/- received back as sale proceeds on sale of shares was added to assessee's total income u/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before

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

94,027. The assessee was not satisfied, therefore, filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1 This issue relates to disallowance of claim of ` 42,44,840 under 3. section 54F of the Act. 4. The assessee has sold

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee is that where the difference between

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

94,500 35,39,000 34,30,000 35,500 Total 97,11,500 1,09,83,000 1,03,93,000 6,81,500 The difference between agreement value and value determined by DVO is Rs.6,81,500/-. In terms of percentage the difference is 7% approximately. The short contention of the assessee is that where the difference between

D.C.I.T. CIR,8, NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY PRAMOD NASHINE, GONDIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

gain at `44,94,650/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition by holding that the asset is outside from the local limits of 8 Km. and, for this, he observed in paragraph 6.2 as under :- “6.2 Since the above issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various judicial pronouncements

M/S. HARIHAR INFRASTUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE- 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 60/Nag/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd.; G-3, Amar Palace, Opp. Patwardhan Ground, Dhantoli, Nagpur-12. Pan : Aabch9888H .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. Shriram, Ar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo, Dr

gain on sale of agricultural land is exempt u/s.2(1A) of I.T.Act, 1961. 3. The addition made by the AO at Rs.31,45,251/- in the assessment framed as business income is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 3 M/s. Harihar Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Nagpur 4. In the facts and circumstances of the case

SHASHI VASANT SHASTRI,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royshashi Vasant Shastri, Acit, Central Circle– 2(1) 186, Induyash Apartment, Vs Nagpur 1St Floor, Dharampeth North Bazar Road, Ramnagar Square, Nagpur. Pan : Atbps 5695 M Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Veena Agrawal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2026

section 2(47), such receipt cannot be taxed under the head “Capital Gains”. Further, the Ld. AO has brought the amount to tax under the residuary head “Income from Other Sources”, without establishing how such advance assumes the character of income. It is pertinent to note that (Shashi Vasant Shastri) an advance received in the course of a proposed sale

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

94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. ITA AY Appeal by Asst.Order Abated/ Additions CIT (A) No Unabated Order 1 47/NAG/2021 2011-12 Department

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

94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. ITA AY Appeal by Asst.Order Abated/ Additions CIT (A) No Unabated Order 1 47/NAG/2021 2011-12 Department

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

94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. ITA AY Appeal by Asst.Order Abated/ Additions CIT (A) No Unabated Order 1 47/NAG/2021 2011-12 Department

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

94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. ITA AY Appeal by Asst.Order Abated/ Additions CIT (A) No Unabated Order 1 47/NAG/2021 2011-12 Department

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

94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. ITA AY Appeal by Asst.Order Abated/ Additions CIT (A) No Unabated Order 1 47/NAG/2021 2011-12 Department

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

94,90,000/- 54,15,14,434/- 8,20,24,434/- ACIT Vs. Radha Madhav Developers ITA nos. 26,27,47,48,49, 140/Nag./2021 & CO Nos. 3, 4 5/Nag/2023 4. The summery of the cases before the ITAT is as under: S. ITA AY Appeal by Asst.Order Abated/ Additions CIT (A) No Unabated Order 1 47/NAG/2021 2011-12 Department

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

7 Shri Vishwakarma Jewellers ITA no.99/Nag./2025 15. Therefore, the foundational requirement before invoking the deeming provisions is not that there were certain survey operations u/s 133A and some undisclosed income has been detected and surrendered by the Assessee and thus, the deeming provisions are automatically attracted. Rather the foundational requirement is whether the Assessee has made the investment/has been

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains by understatement of the consideration. This was real object and purpose of the enactment of sub-section (2) and the interpretation of this sub-section must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose. We must, therefore, accept as the underlying assumption of subsection (2) that there is understatement of consideration in respect of the transfer