SUFALAM INFRA PROJECTS LTD ,NAGPUR vs. PR. CIT (CENTRAL ), NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. SUFLAM INFRA PROJECT LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, the departmental appeal is dismissed

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

house property', in respect of which there was a sharp divergence of opinion amongst the High Courts, was clarificatory and declaratory in nature and consequently retrospective. Similarly, in Brij Mohan Das Laxman Das v. CIT (1997) 90 Taxman 41 (SC), explanation 2 added to section 40of the Act was held to be declaratory in nature and, therefore, retrospective. (Reference Page

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

263, has also returned a finding that facilities provided are integral part of the house property being let out and such facilities are to be provided where the property is to be let out. Therefore, the facilities are incidental and ancillary to the predominate nature of transaction being letting out of the premises. In case of CIT vs National Storage

M/S MUSTAFA ASSOCIATES,,CHANDRAPUR vs. C.I.T.-3, NAGPUR

The appeal of the appellant is allowed in term of aforestated observation

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 167/Nag/2015 आयकर िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-2011 M/S Mustafa Associates, Nr Vasant Bhavan, Kasturba Rd. Chandrapur – 442 402(Maharashtra) Pan : Aalfm 6727 F . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Aayakar Bhavan, Nagpur – 440 001 (Mh) . . . . . . . ""यथ" / Respondent }Kjk / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. C. Thakar Revenue By : Shri Pradeep Headoo सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 18/02/2022 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/04/2022 आदेश / Order Per Jamlappa D Battull, Am; The Appellant Against The Revisionary Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Nagpur [For Short “Cit”] Dt. 07/03/2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which In Turn Dove Out Of Regular Order Of Assessment Dt. 27/11/2012 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer-Ward-2, Chandrapur [For Shot “Ao”], Filed These Appeals Before Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [For Short “The Tribunal”] U/S 253. Itat-Nagpur Page 1 Of 16

2) dt. 29/08/2011 and finally the assessment u/s 143(3) were completed accepting the returned income. 4.2 The Ld. PCIT after culmination of the assessment proceedings, called for the assessment records and upon perusal thereof, disagreement with the action of Ld. AO, invoked the revisionary powers vested in him by virtue of section 263(1) and held the orders

PRITAM SINGH CHARAN SINGH GUJJAR,NAGPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

263 was not called for. (1981) 131 ITR 0597 (Supreme Court) K.P. Varghese Vs. Income Tax Officer & Anr is under section 52(2) and has no relevance to section 50C which is a deeming provision where there is no duty to prove that consideration is passed.. 5.5 In the decisions the Tribunal after analyzing the facts that the difference

MUJIB SALMANBHAI PATHAN,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INOCME TAX CIRCLE -3, NAGPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.98/Nag/2019 Assessment Year : 2015-16 ......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Mujib Salmanbhai Pathan, House No.242, Ward No.2, Old Area, Wardha Road, Butibori, Nagpur-441108. Pan : Aefpp0269M. बनाम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Circle-3, Nagpur. Assessee By : Shri Veena Agrawal Revenue By : Smt. Agnes P. Thomas. सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.06.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 24.06.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Nagpur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.03.2019 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Stating That The Subject, Whether Proper Approval Was Taken Before Converting Limited Scrutiny Into Complete Scrutiny Being Administrative Measure Cannot Be Taken Up. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned Cit (A) Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs 1,00,85,013/- Made By The Ao As Income Under The Head Business & Profession Rightly Declared As Income Under The Head Capital Gains.

2 3. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have considered (i) intention of the assessee (ii) period of holding (iii) consistency in treating the sale of another pieces of same land as income under the head capital gain in subsequent years. 4. On the facts and in circumstances

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

263 ITR 706 (SC) observed as under: ‘’The court finds that notwithstanding a series of legal steps taken by an assessee, the intended legal results has not been achieved, the court ,night be justified in overlooking the intermediate steps, but it is not permissible for the court to treat the intervening legal step as non est based upon some hypothetical

VASANT CO-OP SHETKARI GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY LTD.,YAVATMAL vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 29/Nag/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited; At. Yavatmal Road, Wani, Tq. Wani, Dist. Yavatmal-440 010 Pan : Aaaat1439M .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-Ii, Nagpur. ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pravin Gandhi, Ar Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale, Dr

section 263 of the IT Act, 1961. 3) Assessee craves leave to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3 The Vasant Co-Op. Shetkari Ginning & Pressing Factory Limited Vs. Pr. CIT 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee company which is engaged in the business of cotton ginning and pressing had e-filed its return of income

M/S PHOENIX INFRA ESTATE INTERNATIONAL LTD,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals by the assessee stand dismissed in limine

Bench: Shri V. Durgarao & Shrik.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Housing Society ……………. Appellant Near Reliance Fresh, Manish Nagar Nagpur 440 015 PAN – AAECP0055D v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax ……………. Respondent Circle–2(3), Nagpur Assessee by : Shri Purushotam Sahu Revenue by : Shri Sandipkumar Salunke Date of Hearing – 06/02/2025 Date of Order – 05/03/2025 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, J.M. These appeals by the assessee are emanating from

SHRI VISHWAKARAMA JEWELLERS ,AKOLA vs. DCIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

house property, (iii) 'profits and gains from business or profession', (iv) 'capital gains' and (v) 'income from other sources cannot at all be adjusted against unexplained investment or expenditure. What is necessary as per Hon'ble Gujarat High Court is that source of acquisition of asset or expenditure should be clearly identifiable. In the case before Hon'ble Gujarat High