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 as on the date of transfer. The authorized representative vehemently submitted that only one house was under the exclusive ownership of the appellant. The rests two houses were under the joint ownership. He pleaded that the “joint ownership” cannot be equated to “exclusive ownership” and as such the assessee was owner of only one residential house

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

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

disallowed for above reasons. Pertinent to note is that there is no dispute regarding cost of construction of residential House Property

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

disallowance of claim of ` 42,44,840 under 3. section 54F of the Act. 4. The assessee has sold the property located at Kamptee and surplus arising on sale was shown as long term capital gain. The assessee has constructed the residential 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”. The matter is thus decided in favour of the assessee and the grounds of appeal are disposed off accordingly. 6. Regarding ground No. 5, the ld. AR submitted that disallowance

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

disallowance made by the Assessing Officer with respect of interest on loan. Brief facts are, the assessee for the year under consideration 4. filed return of income on 24th February 2012, deriving income from Partnership Firm namely Shri S.K. Banerjee, M/s. S.A.S. Dev & Engg., M/s. Banerjee Brothers and M/s. Vidarbha Aua Equipment. The assessee has claimed loss on house property

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

disallowed the interest amount at Rs.2,54,91,339/- and made the total addition of Rs.2,64,54,673/-. The assessee encloses herewith details of copy of account of interest on loan which is on Page-148 to 150 of the Paper Book. The assessee also encloses herewith interest certificate of Tata Capital Financial Services Ltd., which is on Page

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

house under construction with built–up area of 158.55 sq.mtrs. on the piece of plot measuring 19,200 sq.mtrs. in survey no.11/1, Mauja Navsari, District Amravati. The land is consistently used for agricultural purpose. It is beyond the scope of wildest imagination that usage of land is ambulatory even when character of land is agricultural. We are fortified

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

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

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

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)

disallowing the claim of LTCG. 5. The Ld. Commissioner, in appeal, granted the relief to the extent of 50% of Rs. 16,35,260/- being cost of new property by following the decision of Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Mrs. Niharika M. Jhangiani vs. Addl. CIT in MA No. 349/MUM/2017 (arising out of ITA No.7208/MUM/2011), whereby

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

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

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 A. 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

SMT. ANJU SARAF,,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 2(2), 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

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

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

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