NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

house property deserve to be deleted in the interest of justice. 6) The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, vary and / or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal.” 3. Ground no.1, being general in nature, hence no separate adjudication is needed. 4. Ground no.2, relates to addition

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

exemption under section 54ECof the Act at `50,00,000, for purchase of REC Bonds. Since, the land sold is a piece of plot with residential house property

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 income (i) ` 1,36,709 disallowed Agricultural income has been treated as business (ii) ` 2,52,393 income Dividend income claimed exempt

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)

exemption under Section 54F of the Act with reference to the whole amount invested in the said house property. The AO vide

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

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

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

House Mortgage Society Ltd., City Survey No.659 of Mouza Mankapur, Nagpur at ` 80,50,000. Accordingly, notice under section 142(1) of the Act was issued to the assessee. The assessee furnished his reply along with its enclosures. The Assessing Officer, on a perusal of assessee’s reply, it was observed that the assessee has sold the said immovable property

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

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

house property.” 3. The assessee’s cross objections C.O.No.1/NAG/ 2022 on the other hand supports the CIT(A)'s findings holding that the Assessing Officer had not framed a valid assessment thereby making the corresponding above stated additions as under : 4 ITA.No.106 & C.O.No.1/NAG./2022 “1. That the order of the learned Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3.\nOn the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S MANSA AGRO FOOD PROCESSING PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

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

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR.-2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S THANJAVUR COMMERCE PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property of Rs.3,72,266/- as\nbusiness income\n3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred\nin deleting the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer of Rs.1,11,680/-\nand treating the same as business income, which was claimed as deduction\nu/s.24 by the assessee.\n4. On the facts and in the circumstances