ABDULLABHAI HASANALI THROUGH L/H ZOHRABAI,NAGPUR vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-3,, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

long term capital gain of Rs.18,56,944/- to the returned income. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the action is not justified. (5) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in not carry forward the remaining loss of Rs.51,21,325/- on account of capital gain loss

SHRI. ABDULLABHAI HASANALI,,NAGPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,-II, NAGPUR

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

long term capital gain of Rs.18,56,944/- to the returned income. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the action is not justified. (5) That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax erred in law and on facts in not carry forward the remaining loss of Rs.51,21,325/- on account of capital gain loss

DY. C.I.T. CIR-.2, NAGPUR vs. SHRI GOVINDDAS GOVERDHAN DAGA, NAGPUR

In the result, cross-objection filed by the assessee stands dismissed

penalty\nproceedings a/s 272.4(2)(c) of the L.T. Act, 1961 and to take other necessary\nsteps under the law.\"\n5.1 The AR of-the assessee later on submitted copies of assessment order\npassed by ACIT(CC)-1(4). Nagpur, u/s 143(3) and stated that the undersigned\nhad no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s

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

long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer also examined the various purchase and sale documents for the original and newly acquired properties and came to the conclusion that the assessee would not be entitled to claim the said deduction under section 54F. The withdrawal of exemption under section 54F of the Act was made by the Assessing Officer

BHAVIKA GUNWANT PATEL,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee are allowed

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

long term capital gain and claimed the same as exempt for taxation purpose as per the provisions of section 10(38) of the Act. Subsequently, the case was re–opened by the Assessing Officer. On the basis of information available on record and other details, the Assessing Officer has calculated @ 3% of commission and accommodation

MRS. DEVYANI AJIT MULIK,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

long term capital gain shown by the assessee in the return of income and as calculated by the AO. AO also initiated penalty u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Vide order dated 28.06.2019, AO levied penalty u/s. 271

TAJSHREE AUTOWHEELS PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. ACIT CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR

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

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

long term and short term funding requirements for the purpose of running its business. The capital has been raised by issuing certain number of shares at certain price, which is again within the domain of assessee to decide. The assessee in captioned case issued shares at premium based on the value decided by the board of Directors of the company

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess." 11. For computing the income under the head 'business income certain deductions are allowed from such business income and one such deduction is laid down in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The said section provides

VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5) , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for A

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

capital and of the general reserves of the specified entity, no allowance under this clause shall be made in respect of such excess." 11. For computing the income under the head 'business income certain deductions are allowed from such business income and one such deduction is laid down in section 36(1) (vii) of the Act. The said section provides

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE AT NGP, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

long delay in filing appeal and the cause of delay is not good cause. The delay may not be condoned. 5. We have heard counsel for both the parties on delay and perused the material placed on record, and the judgment cited before us on application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) -4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

long delay in filing appeal and the cause of delay is not good cause. The delay may not be condoned. 5. We have heard counsel for both the parties on delay and perused the material placed on record, and the judgment cited before us on application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before

SHREE SANT BHOJAJI MAHARAJ DEOSTHAN AJANSARA,WARDHA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTION) - 4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh& Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

long delay in filing appeal and the cause of delay is not good cause. The delay may not be condoned. 5. We have heard counsel for both the parties on delay and perused the material placed on record, and the judgment cited before us on application seeking condonation of delay. Considering the entire factual position as explained before