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 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

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

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. VINODKUMAR RAJENDRALAL KOCHHAR, KAMPTEE

In the result, the appeal filed by the department is dismissed

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

House Property, Income from Business, Income from Capital Gains and Income from other sources & he had been regularly filing his return of income for the last 5 decades. (iii) During the captioned assessment year, the appellant had opted for computation of income U/s. 44AD in respect of his business activity and while filing online return of Income

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

short contention of the assessee is that where the difference between the agreement value and the market value is less than 10% no addition should be made. 5. Similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Radhika Sales Corporation (supra). The Tribunal deleted the addition by observing as under: “5. We have heard the submissions made

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

short contention of the assessee is that where the difference between the agreement value and the market value is less than 10% no addition should be made. 5. Similar issue had come up before the Tribunal in the case of Radhika Sales Corporation (supra). The Tribunal deleted the addition by observing as under: “5. We have heard the submissions made

MAYURA NILESH LATI,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhrymayura Nilesh Lati, Ito, Ward-4(4), Nagpur B-01, Padmanabh Residency, Plot No.16/B, Tilaknagar, Vs. Nawabarea Layout, Near Whc Road, Dharampeth, Nagpur. Pan: Aevpl 2151 E (Appellant) (Respondent)

short, ‘Act’) for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2 2. At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 103 days in filing the instant appeal, on which Assessee by filing sworn affidavit stated the reasons for causing delay that Assessee is a house-wife and she has limited experience with financial and legal matters and rely

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”].

term basis as investment, her behaviour would have been otherwise. No single fact has a decisive significance in coming to a conclusion regarding a particular transaction. One has to look at the cumulative effect of all the facts, circumstances and purposes in a given case to arrive at a conclusion as to whether the transaction involved is an instance

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

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

short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 11. Vide ground no.2, the assessee has raised the issue that M/s. Maria

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

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

short term capital gain of sale of shares. This is an inadvertent mistake which will not change the conclusion, hence, re–opening is justified. Ground no.1, raised by the assessee is dismissed. Smt. Fatema Shoeb Hussain A.Y. 2004–05, 2005–06, 2006–07, 2007–08 & 2008–09 11. Vide ground no.2, the assessee has raised the issue that M/s. Maria