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 54F of the Act as against total claim of `3,18,59,276/- made by the assessee. The AO allowed claim only to the extent of `1,59,29,638/- and the balance 50% being `1,59,29,638/- was disallowed

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

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

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

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

NARAYAN MAHADEORAO DHAWANE,MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -5(1), MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs.3,44,148/- and addition u/s 50C of Rs.1,04,480/-is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 4. The addition of Total Rs.4,48,628/- levied on appellant is incorrect, illegal, bad in law and without natural justice and the same

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

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

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]

disallowing and 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] as claimed deserves to be allowed as per law and in the interest

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