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

45: Provided that nothing contained d in this sub-section shall apply where (a) the assessee, 1. owns more than one residential house, other than the new asset, on the date of transfer of the original asset; or 2 (ii) purchases any residential house, other than the new asset, within a period of one year after the date of transfer

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

2), where in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family, the Capital gain arises from transfer of long-term asset being buildings land appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset

I.T.O. WARD -3(5), NAGPUR vs. SHRI MUKUNDRAO GOVINDRAO MANKAR, KATOL

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal & Shri Amarjit Singh

Housing Society, loan agreements with LRPL, security provided for the said loan, interest paid to LRPL, etc. The Assessing Officer further carried out enquiries by way of issuing notice under section 131 to LRPL with certain directions contained in the said notice. The LRPL complied to the said directions of the Assessing Officer and furnished various details including copy

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 u/s 54 by the learned AO during assessment proceedings and remand proceedings as well as by learned CIT(A) during

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

45,73,922 and the return of income was filed by the assessee after the due date and the loss was not allowed to carry forward to the subsequent year and the interest was claimed only because it was a housing loan interest which was duly paid by the assesse during the previous year relevant to the assessment year

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

property as per registered sale deed is residential 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

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]

house property value of which was determined at Rs.19,75,388 making total consideration for sale of property to be Rs.99,95,388.” 2) The consideration of Rs.80,20,000 received is as under : Sr.No Date Amount 1 6.11.2013 15,00,000 2

SHRI DEEPAK SURESH GADGE,,NAGPUR vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1 , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee partly allowed

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

houses thereon. The said land has been purchased by the firm, through the assessee as partner, vide purchase deed dated 05/09/2008, and correction deed dated 02/07/2009 for ` 22,50,000. According to the Assessing Officer, this land has been taken by the assessee into stock for previous year in his books of accounts. Since the assessee is engaged

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

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd.& Group Cases 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 14,69,12,389/-. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

DY. C.I.T. CENTRAL CIR2(2), NAGPUR vs. M/S SHREE AGRAWAL COAL INDIA PVT. LTD.,, NAGPUR

In the result, Revenue’s appeal being ITA no

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

45,38,278/-. 5 M/s. Shree Agarwal Coal India Pvt. Ltd.& Group Cases 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made on account of unsecured loans being unexplained credits Rs. 14,69,12,389/-. 10. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned

M/S NEW VIRAJ HOUSING AGENCY,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for all the three years is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

45 though bears the name of the assessee, the place of search mentioned therein is the residence of partnersi.e2nd Floor, Deshmukh Apartment, 40 Dattatray Nagar, Nagpurand so the warrant authorised the authorised officers named in the warrant, only to enter and search the specified building i.e. 2nd Floor, Deshmukh Apartment, 40 Dattatray Nagar, Nagpur. Thus, the only place that could

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. VISHNU GILTS PVT.LT, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore dated February 9, 2018 published on March 3, 2018 on ITAT online. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1, NAGPUR vs. M/S RAGHAV FINVEST PVT LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore dated February 9, 2018 published on March 3, 2018 on ITAT online. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR vs. M/S NIHAL GITS PVT.LTD , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

Property Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, ITAT Bangalore dated February 9, 2018 published on March 3, 2018 on ITAT online. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that share capital and premium received are on capital account and therefore cannot be treated as income without appreciating the fact

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground

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

2,74,00,000 and whether or not the learned CIT(A) was correct in granting relief under section 32(1)(iia) of the Act when the same is prospective effective from 1st April 2013. This issue has been raised by the Revenue in its appeal being ITA no.437/Nag./2016 (ground no.6 & 7), Revenue’s appeal being ITAno.438/Nag./2016 (ground