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

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2 per cent of the sale consideration. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction V/s. DCIT (supra) has held that where difference between the sale consideration declared by the assessee and fair market value as determined by the DVO u/s 50C is less than 10 percent, the Assessing Officer was not justified in substituting

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

2 per cent of the sale consideration. The co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Construction V/s. DCIT (supra) has held that where difference between the sale consideration declared by the assessee and fair market value as determined by the DVO u/s 50C is less than 10 percent, the Assessing Officer was not justified in substituting

SHRIRAM NARAYAN TIKDE,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX, WARD 4(4) , NAGPUR

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

house property against long-term capital gains of Rs.73,041 offered by the assessee. 4. Without prejudice to Ground number 3 above, the assessee submits that, the learned AO and learned CIT(A) erred in not referring the valuation of the property sold i.e situated at Shanti Nagar, Nagpur to DVO as per section 50C(2

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions

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

section 50C deserves to be ignored in the interest of justice. Naresh Vasantrai Trivedi ITA no.108/Nag./2021 6) The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in enhancing the income of the Appellant on account of income from house property from the houses owned by the Appellant without providing any cogent reasons for the same and further by ignoring the submissions

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)

house owned by her husband. 4. The Ld. AO though considered the aforesaid claim of the Assessee, however, not accepted the same in view of the provisions of section 54(2) and observed that the Assessee has not deposited the amount of unutilized in the capital gain in scheme till the date of filing of return and therefore

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), NAGPUR vs. KHARE AND TARKUNDE INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roydcit, Central Circle-2(1), Khare & Tarkunde Nagpur Vs Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 235, Shivaji Complex, Dharmpeth, Nagpur Pan : Aaack 7184 N Department Assessee Assessee By : Shri Sachin V. Luthra, Ca Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.04.2026 O R D E R

2 Act. Therefore, show-cause notice dated 25.12.2018 was issued to the assessee. In response thereto, assessee stated that provisions of section 43CA are not applicable in the case of transfer of any intangible assets like TDR, tenancy right or development right in the ordinary course of business of the assessee who is engaged in the business of builders

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

2. The valuation made by valuation officer for Rs.4,48,628/- as against valuation incorrect as the same has not included the construction made by appellant is incorrect, bad in law and without natural justice and the same is to be deleted. 3. The disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of Rs.3,44,148/- and addition u/s 50C of Rs.1

SUDHAKAR ATMARAM TIPLE,CHANDRAPUR vs. ITO WARD-3, CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shrivikram Singh Yadav & Shriyogesh Kumar U.S

House Sakar Nagar, Ekarjuna …………… Appellant Warora, Chandrapur–442 907 PAN No: ATDPT9449A v/s ITO,Ward–3 Chandrapur–442 401 ..…….………. Respondent Assessee by :None Revenue by : ShriG.N.Ninawe, JCIT Date of Hearing – 01.06.2022 Date of Order – 10.06.2022 O R D E R PER SHRIVIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the learnedCommissioner of Income