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)

48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation of Rs. 53,52,000/- but not reflected the capital gain earned, in the income tax return and therefore, the Ld. AO by issuing show-cause notice asked the Assessee “as to why no income from long term capital gain on the sale of above property has not been reflected in the return

VIJAY VINOD DURAGKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(4), 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”, “income from business & profession” and “income from other sources”. The case was re–opened and notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") was issued on 20/03/2020. The assessee, while 3 Vijaya Vinod Duragkar responding to the notice under section 148 of the Act, vide her letter dated 30/03/2021, submitted that she having already

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

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION& INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD,BILASPUR vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeals for the assessment year 2009–10 to 2013–14 are partly allowed

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

section 153A(1) read with „Expln-2‟; in absence of this, assessment made u/s153C would be invalid & is liable to be quashed; relied on Goldstone Cements Ltd (2023) (Gau HC); Fortune Vanijya (P) Ltd (2023) (Gau HC).” 40. In the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No.111/Nag/ 2024, for the assessment year 2012-13 along with following additional ground

NARAYAN MAHADEORAO DHAWANE,MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -5(1), MAHARASHTRA, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

house out of the entire sale proceeds by July 2011. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the difference in stamp duty value of the property sold at ` 6,96,750, as against the sale value of ` 3,59,520. Hence, the Assessing Officer re–opened the assessee’s case and issued statutory notices under section

VINAY RAMSHARANDAS AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

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

house property, income from capital gain and income from other sources. Necessary enquiries were conducted by the Assessing Officer by issuing 4 Vinay Ramsharandas Agrawal ITA no.110/Nag./2023 statutory notices in response to which the assessee furnished details of sources of income, capital introduction and specific details of capital gain were called and examined. The assessee, in response

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

48,899, which was claimed exempt under section 10(34) of the Act and claimed expenditure at ₹ 15,75,789, in the return of income. The Assessing Officer has made disallowance under section 14A at ₹ 15,75,789, though the assessee is not liable for the same. Being aggrieved the assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority.\n6. During

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

Housing Society, Gittikhadan, Nagpur, for a sale consideration of ` 37,00,000. The market value of the property was shown at ` 40,22,000, for stamp duty purposes. The Assessing Officer adopted the stamp duty valuation for computing profit and gains arising on sale of property by the assessee. The Assessing officer has not brought any evidence on record

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. The assessee has also shown income from exempt capital gains from transfer of equity shares. 7 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 The assessee has purchased 422500 shares of Swift IT Infrastructure and Services Ltd. by cheque on 16/03/2012 during the previous year relevant to Asstt

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. SMT. RAJKUMARI DHARAMPAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

House Property. 3. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 37. In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2011, under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") disclosing total income of ` 15,03,450 and agricultural income

SMT RAJKUMARI DHARAMPAL AGRAWAL,NAGPUR vs. A,C.I.T CENT CIR. 1(2), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

House Property. 3. Any other ground of appeal that may be raised at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 37. In this case, the assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income on 29/09/2011, under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") disclosing total income of ` 15,03,450 and agricultural income

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOMET AX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

House Property and Other Sources. The Return of Income u/s 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was filed on 30/03/2016 declaring total income of Rs. 46,76,270/-. 2. Search and Seizure operation under Sec. 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was carried out on the premises of the Assessee on 02/12/2014. During the course

M/S. FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

48,200 income 2006–07 Unexplained ` 12,70,000 Investment Unexplained ` 3,00,000 receipt ` 37,31,700 Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit ` 15,85,682 Commission 36,380 income Income from ticket 4,51,860 booking

MISS FATEMA SHOEB HUSSAIN,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4),, NAGPUR

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

48,200 income 2006–07 Unexplained ` 12,70,000 Investment Unexplained ` 3,00,000 receipt ` 37,31,700 Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 Relating to Travel Unexplained credit ` 15,85,682 Commission 36,380 income Income from ticket 4,51,860 booking