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)

property, on which capital gain was earned, on dated 15/03/2011 and therefore, according to the provisions of section 54 of the Act, the Assessee is entitled to purchase a house

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. In doing so, the learned AO erred in not providing benefit of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.4,55,185 incurred during FY 2006-07, brokerage fees on sale of plot of Rs.25,000 and deduction under section 54

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR vs. M/S SAS DEVELOPERS & ENGINEERS `, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by department is dismissed

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

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned CIT (A)-2, Nagpur, [“learned CIT (A)”], for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. The Department has raised following grounds of appeal:– “1] Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A)-2, Nagpur was justified deleting the disallowance

MAHESHKUMAR BADRIBISHAL BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

property at District Sitamarhi, Bihar. The assessee invested capital gain in purchase of two adjoining / adjacent flat and claimed exemption under section 54F. The assessing officer allowed exemption in respect of only one flat and disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed

SHRI AJITKUMAR BADRIPRASAD BHARTIYA,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Shri Ajitkumar Badriprasad Bhartiya Dcit, Circle –1 A–704, Anandam World City, Vs Bsnl–Rttc Building, Umred Road, Ganeshopeth, Seminary Hills, Nagpur – 440018. Nagpur – 440001. [Pan: Abbpb0801G] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

property at District Sitamarhi, Bihar. The assessee invested capital gain in purchase of two adjoining / adjacent flat and claimed exemption under section 54F. The assessing officer allowed exemption in respect of only one flat and disallowed in respect of adjoining flat, whereby assessing officer, out of total exemption under section 54F disallowed `. 13,54,096/–. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed

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

SHRI PRAVEEN MANOHAR GHODKHANDE,,NAGPUR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2),, NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed

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

house property situated at Plot No. 43, Mouza Bhamti has been purchased on 15/12/2008 from one Shri Pradeep Meshram. This contention of the appellant has not been found correct by the AO. As per information received from Nagpur Improvement Trust, who has informed by letter dt. 23/12/2010, the property under question is an open plot which has been regularised

SHAILESH CHAMPAKLAL VAKHARIA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (CENTRAL) CIRCLE - 1(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

Property is plot. no. 51, NIT Municipal house no. 1366, MausaHivari, Wardhaman Nagar to Brindesh Agrawal for consideration of 5.21 Cr on October 2016. Govardhan Das 3 Shailesh Champaklal Vakharia ITA no.344/Nag./2023 V. As regards to Shri Mahavir Vakharia, the power of attorney is held by our assessee, Shri Shailesh Vakharia. vi. Since the document is sale agreement

SMT. VEENA MAHESHWARI ,NAGPUR vs. DY.C.I.T,CIRCLE-1,NAGPUR , NAGPUR

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.323/Nag/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Smt.Veena Maheshwari, The Dy.Cit, Circle-1, 2Nd Floor, 52/2, Kinkhede Lay Vs. Nagpur. Out, Temple Road, Nagpur – 440001. Pan: Abxpm 3150 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri G.J.Ninawe – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/11/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 10/01/2023 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-1, Nagpur’S Dated 11.05.2017 In Case No.Cit(A)-1/148/2014-15, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

54 has been given facade of capital gains earning when they, in fact, pertain to business income as per provisions of section 2(13) of the IT Act mentioned & analysed in detail by the AO in Page-4 to 8 in the assessment order. The same is not reproduced here for the sake of brevity. Had it been appellant

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

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

section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act"). 4. Facts in brief:– The assessee, for the year under consideration, filed its return of income electronically on 31/03/2016, declaring total income at ` 41,54,590. The case was selected for limited scrutiny through CASS and accordingly, notice u/s 143(2) of the Income