SHRI RAJESH DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

54F of the Act. 4. The assessee has sold the property located at Kamptee and surplus arising on sale was shown as long term capital gain. The assessee has constructed the residential house and claimed exemption 4 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani in respect of long term capital gain under section

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 purchased jointly with his wife. The AO, therefore, allowed 50% of the exemption claimed under Section 54F of the Act as against total claim of `3,18,59,276/- made by the assessee. The AO allowed claim only to the extent of `1,59,29,638/- and the balance 50% being `1,59,29,638/- was disallowed. 5 4

SHRI RAJESH MOOLCHAND DAYARAMANI,,NAGPUR vs. ACIT-CIRCLE-8,, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

4 Shri Rajesh Moolchand Dayaramani inaccurate particulars and accordingly, penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated on two grounds:– i) Assessee had claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act, when he was not eligible to do so; ii) Assessee had furnished inaccurate details

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). 5.The learned AO erred

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 and claimed deduction under section 54F of the Act for utilisation of entire sale proceeds in his return of income which was rejected by the Assessing Officer without adducing any cogent reason. The Valuation Officer valued the property for ` 4

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

SHRI DHIRAJ RAMBHAU LINGADE L/H OF LATE SMT. MEENAKSHI RAMBHAU MLINGADE,,BULDHANA vs. A.C.I.T. , AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Dhiraj Rambhau Lingade Vs. The Acit L/H Of Late Smt. Meenakshi Rambhau Lingade Akola Circle Buldhana Akola Pan No.:Abopl 3689 P Appellant Respondent Assessee By: Shri S.C. Thakar, Adv. Shri Kapil Hirani, Adv Revenue By :Smt. Agnes P Thomas (Cit-Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 8 /6/2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M.

house in Pune which was used for claiming exemption under section 54F. i. The Appellant accordingly then sold a large chunk of the plot in the impugned Financial Year (“FY”) for a total consideration of Rs. 83,72,000/- Long Term Capital Gains (“LTCG”) on the same, according to the Appellant amounted to Rs. 65,61,939/-. The Appellant offered

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 6.11.2013 10,00,000 3 21.12.2013 5,00,000 4

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.

property as prescribed under 3 the provisions of section 54F of the Act. The claim for exemption u/s 54F of the Act was denied by the Assessing Officer on the following grounds :- (i) The appellant is engaged in the business of builders and developers and a dealer of land. (ii) The appellant had indulged into transactions of purchase and sale

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

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. 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. Year 2013-2014 and the same were shown in the balance

SHRI SHRI GURVINDER SINGH SASAN, L/H OF LATE SHRI JAGDISH SINGH SASAN,NAGPUR vs. THE ITO-WARD-2(2),, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sh. G.D.Agrawal, Hon’Ble & Sh. Mahavir Singhsh. Gurvinder Singh Sasan, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Sh. Jagdish Singh Sasan, Ward–2(2), C/O–Kasjmir Bar & Restaurant, 3Ed Floor, Ayakar Gaddogudam Chowk, Nagpur–440001. Bhawan, Nagpur Pan–Aeyps3694G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh.K.P.Dewani, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Jitesh Kumar Date Of Hearing 07.03.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 07.03.2018

4. Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO by observing in par 10.7 as under:- 10.7. “As per the layout plan / map approved by the corporation filed during the appellate proceedings, it is seen that the appellant transferred the residential house on 13.12.2006, whereas the sanction for construction of house from the office of the Municipal Corporation of Nagpur

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

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

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

4] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,84,075/- as a estimated gross profit at 10% on assumed construction receipt of Rs.58,40,750/-. The same addition confirm by the C.I.T.(A) without any basis. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,000/- out of cash deposit and Rs.1,00,000/- out of cheque deposit

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

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

4] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,84,075/- as a estimated gross profit at 10% on assumed construction receipt of Rs.58,40,750/-. The same addition confirm by the C.I.T.(A) without any basis. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,000/- out of cash deposit and Rs.1,00,000/- out of cheque deposit

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

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

4] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,84,075/- as a estimated gross profit at 10% on assumed construction receipt of Rs.58,40,750/-. The same addition confirm by the C.I.T.(A) without any basis. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,000/- out of cash deposit and Rs.1,00,000/- out of cheque deposit

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

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

4] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,84,075/- as a estimated gross profit at 10% on assumed construction receipt of Rs.58,40,750/-. The same addition confirm by the C.I.T.(A) without any basis. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,000/- out of cash deposit and Rs.1,00,000/- out of cheque deposit

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

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

4] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,84,075/- as a estimated gross profit at 10% on assumed construction receipt of Rs.58,40,750/-. The same addition confirm by the C.I.T.(A) without any basis. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.5,000/- out of cash deposit and Rs.1,00,000/- out of cheque deposit