SANJAY GULABCHAND GUPTA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands dismissed

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

term asset. The Section, thus, in essence, offers some incentives to a tax payer to change its unproductive assets into a residential house. However in the instant case, this intention of the legislature is already met. The productive asset was already in existence way before the unproductive asset was transferred. In fact the benefit was already availed by the assessee

JEETENDRA CHANDRAKANT NAYAK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOM TAX(OSD), NAGPUR

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

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

short the Act) were issued and complied with. In the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31-12-2018, the learned assessing officer disallowed the claim of the assessee for deduction under section 54F of the Act against the capital gain on transfer of long term capital asset, on the ground that the assessee owned interest

SUSHILA BHAURAO DESHMUKH,AMRAVATI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under section 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

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

gain is on the revenue account? 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) is right in deleting disallowance of premium payable on zero percent fully redeemable non- convertible marketable debentures of Rs. 3,63,01,370/- without appreciating the fact that the same does not amount

M/S V.D.KANAL,NAGPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE -8, NAGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

property at plot No. Q-9, Laxminagar, Nagpur. It therefore, becomes clear that the claim of Rs.96.50 lacs under the head short term capital gain by the firm is a well thought transaction. Subsequent, submission to the contrary, are motivated to achieve the commitment of additional income declared at the time of survey. Hence it is not accepted.” Further

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR. 8, NAGPUR vs. M/S V.D. KANAL, NAGPUR

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is allowed and the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

property at plot No. Q-9, Laxminagar, Nagpur. It therefore, becomes clear that the claim of Rs.96.50 lacs under the head short term capital gain by the firm is a well thought transaction. Subsequent, submission to the contrary, are motivated to achieve the commitment of additional income declared at the time of survey. Hence it is not accepted.” Further

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)

short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2011-12. 2 2. In this case, the Assessing Officer (AO) in the scrutiny assessment observed that the Assessee had sold one residential property vide sale deed dated 15/03/2011 for a consideration of Rs. 48 Lac, as against stamp duty valuation of Rs. 53,52,000/- but not reflected the capital gain earned

D.C.I.T. CIR,8, NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY PRAMOD NASHINE, GONDIA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Mahavir Singh

short term capital gain at `44,94,650/-. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition by holding that the asset is outside from the local limits of 8 Km. and, for this, he observed in paragraph 6.2 as under :- “6.2 Since the above issue is squarely covered in favour of the appellant by various judicial

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

capitals. ' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 169: (2001) 251 ITR 522(SC): (2001) 119 TAXMANN 785(SC) and (2) CIT vs. Ramnathapuram Distt. Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. (2002) 1756 CTR (SC) 297: (2002) 255 ITR 423 (SC): (2002) 123 TAXMANN

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Ram Lal Negi..

capitals. ' The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of (1) Mehsana District Central Co-operative Bank Ltd vs. ITO (2001) 170 CTR (SC) 169: (2001) 251 ITR 522(SC): (2001) 119 TAXMANN 785(SC) and (2) CIT vs. Ramnathapuram Distt. Co-op. Central Bank Ltd. (2002) 1756 CTR (SC) 297: (2002) 255 ITR 423 (SC): (2002) 123 TAXMANN

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

Term Capital Gain (for short ‘LTCG’) on the sale of the same; (ii). that the Assessing Officer failing to appreciate that the assessee had not shifted any industrial undertaking but had carried out a simpliciter sale of a factory which was closed on 02.02.2010 had summarily accepted its claim for deduction under Sec. 54G of the Act.; (iii). that

SYED NAZIM MOINUDDIN QUAZI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 2(3), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. PAN–AAAPQ2442A v/s Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee by:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue by :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 10/10/2025 Date of Order – 10/10/2025 O R D E R The assessee has filed the appeal against

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

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-5, NAGPUR vs. THE NIRMAL UJWAL CREDIT CO-OP SOCIETY LTD, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue for the assessment year

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

capital gains; view of the Tribunal in allowing the assessee‘s appeal on the principle of consistency cannot in the present facts be faulted with.‖ 17 The Nirmal Ujwal Credit Co–operative Society Ltd. A.Y. 2012–13 10. The learned Counsel further submitted that the issue is also covered by the following case laws of the Hon’ble High Court