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

property under construction though of residential nature could not be categorized as " Residential House" and accordingly deduction under section 54F was allowed

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

house property was completed on 31/07/2008 i.e within three years of sale deed of property sold dt. 06/11/2007. 6. That apart from incorrect appreciation of fact regarding period of construction, there is no other objection/s raised with regards to deduction

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

house property has been purchased by assessee on 12th September 2008 and, therefore, capital gain exemption cannot be granted considering the proviso to section 54F(1) of the Act reproduced at Para–3.3 of assessment order, the Assessing Officer has, accordingly, denied the deduction

SHRI SUBUR KUMAR BANERJEE,,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. (OSD) O/O C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Arun Khodpia

Deductions from income from house property. 24. Income chargeable under the head "Income from house property" shall be computed after

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

property the construction cannot precede the date of transfer of original asset giving rise to Capital gains. It is now judicially very well settled that there can be no denial of deduction I exemption u/s 54F for commencing construction of new house

SHRI MAHESH DEVDUTTA GUPTA,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 2(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, the addition so made is directed to be deleted and the ground of appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

house property, however in this particular year, the ld.CIT(A) invoked provisions of section 263 of the Act on the issue that deduction

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL FINANCE INDIA P. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

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

house property of Rs. 3,18,989/- as business income. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,36,709/- and 2 Shree Agarwal Finance India Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.176/Nag./2016 treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SAS DEVELOPERS & ENGINEERS `, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by department is dismissed

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

deduction of interest on housing loan, where the clear nexus of utilisation towards the house property is missing. At the time

VAISHALI ARVIND TAYADE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, AMARAVATI

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

deduction is available on income from house property. It is allowable as a deduction while computing income from house property

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

house property at `2,08,540/- after allowing deduction of interest of `1.50 lakhs. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before learned

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

deductions which is as under: i) There are two aspects in the said sale transaction. The sale of property consists of land and a house

NEST HOSPITALITY,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

House Property” for the year under consideration in the following manner:– “Returned Income Nil (no return) Rental Income ` 23,72,609 Less: Deduction

GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(3),, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

house property. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. For the assessment year 2008–09, the Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.44

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

house property. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. For the assessment year 2008–09, the Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.44

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-1(3), NAGPUR vs. M/S GIGEO CONSTRUCTION CO.PVT. LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

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

house property. 3. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing.” 3. For the assessment year 2008–09, the Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds:– “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.44

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)

deduction should not be denied on hyper technical ground. Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Mir Gulam Ali Khan Vs. CIT, (1987) 165 ITR 228 (AP) has held that the object of granting exemption under Section 54 of the Act is that an assessee who sells a residential house for purchasing another house must be given exemption

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. SHRI MUKESH D. GUPTA, NAGPUR

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

deduction of Rs.40,947/- claimed u/s 24 of the Act made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest paid on borrowed loan ignoring the fact that the assessee failed to produce bank certificate in support of his claim that the loan was for the purpose of house property

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. SMT. ANJU SARAF, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the revenue, cross objections of the assessee are dismissed and appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shrisandeepgosain & Shriarunkhodpia

house is not taxable u/s 23(4)(b) . Without prejudice to our above submission, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in estimating the annual letting value (ALV) of flat. The AO on the basis of monthly rent of Rs 7,91,805/- received by the appellant from commercial property in Prestige Obelisk, Bangalore estimated the monthly rent of Flat