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

price of M/s. Parag Shilp Infrastructure & Services Ltd. to enable to assessee to legitimize his unaccounted fund.\nx) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire gamut of direct & circumstantial evidence placed on record shows that claim of Long Term Capital Gain is Bogus in nature

NAGESHWARA CHARITABLE TRUST,NAGPUR vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.371/Nag/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : N.A. Nageshwara Charitable The Commissioner Of Trust, V Income Tax, Exemption, 101, Laxmi Vilas Apartment, S Pune. Khare Town, Rangole Marg, Dharampeth, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440010. Pan: Aaatn2648F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Kapil Hirani – Ar Revenue By Shri Kailash C.Kanojiya – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 18/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 03.11.2022. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That Nageshwara Charitable Trust [A]

transfer or application at any time of the whole or any part of the income or assets of the institution or fund for any purpose other than a charitable purpose; (iii) the institution or fund is not expressed to be for the benefit of any particular religious community or caste; (iv) the institution or fund maintains regular accounts

SHABBIR AHMED AHMED ALI,NAGPUR vs. NATIONAL E ASSESMENT CENTRY, DELHI

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

Exemption: Under section 54 – ` 34,05,731 invested in Residential Property (With a period of 1 year before the date of transfer / sale) 0” Therefore, notice u/s.142(1) of the I.T. Act issued to the assessee on 05/03/2021. The assessee was asked to furnish evidences of indexed cost of improvement of Rs.23,62,675/- claimed in the working capital gain

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and bills were

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and bills were

DCIT, CIRCLE-2, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. NARESH LAXMINARAYAN GROVER, NAGPUR

In the result, all these three appeals for the A

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

transferred into respondent's Demat account where it remained for more than one year. After a period of one year the shares were sold by the said broker on various dates in the Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes and bills were

RAJESH SARDA,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy(Physical Hearing) Rajesh Sarda, Acit, Central Circle – 2(2), Nagpur 14, Daga Lay–Out, Ambazari Road, Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur – 440033. Maharashtra – 440001. [Pan: Ahaps4925M] Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri K.P. Dewani, Advocate Revenue By Shri Pankaj Kumar, Cit–Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act

transferred to the share brokers and ultimately used for purchase of shares by various brokers / companies. On the basis of such observation, the AO treated the transaction of both the long term capital gain as sham transaction and aggregate of both the long term capital gains of Rs. 18.84 crore was treated income from undisclosed sources in the assessment order

GEETADEVI BADRINARAYAN PANPALIYA,NAGPUR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands partly allowed

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

Price as on 16/01/2014 (1,62,50,000 2,43,75,000 + 81,25,000) Value adopted or assessed by Stamp 2,43,75,000 Valuation Authority Deemed value of asset being greater of 2,43,75,000 the above two (sec. 50C) Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (235200 x 939/100) 22,08,528 (Cost as on 01/04/1981

RUPESH LALDAS DHAKATE,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD -1, BHANDARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

price. The case involved situations where agreements to sell were executed, and payments were made before the actual registration of the sale deed. Key Point: The Madras High Court held that where the agreement to sell and the payment had already been made, and there was a clear intention to transfer ownership, the date of the agreement could have relevance

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or any other bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It may be mentioned that all cooperative banks have been excluded from the purview of this provision in view of the position that under section 80P(2)(a)(i), the profits and gains of a co-operative society

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

Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 or any other bank included in the Second Schedule to the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934. It may be mentioned that all cooperative banks have been excluded from the purview of this provision in view of the position that under section 80P(2)(a)(i), the profits and gains of a co-operative society

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI SANJAY GAURISHANKAR AGRAWAL , NAGPUR

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

prices were artificially rigged. Thus, it was observed by the assessing officer that Esaar (India) Ltd. is a penny stock and used across to give accommodation entries to earn capital gain. v) During the course of investigation conducted at Kolkata, in the case of the assessee, it was found that certain exit operators have admitted that they were involved

MANISHA ASHUTOSH SHEWALKAR,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(3), NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands allowed

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

exempted and not capital assets of the assessee as per provision of section 2(14) Income Tax Act, therefore addition made is illegal, invalid and bad in law; 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in not considering that the aforesaid; agriculture land was converted into non-agriculture as per the order

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

exemption limit, hence he was under the bona fide belief that he was not required to file return of income and thus, the initially the assessee did not file his return of income. The assessee, however, filed computation of income under the belief that it would be sufficient compliance which is duly disclosed all the particulars of his income

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

exemption limit, hence he was under the bona fide belief that he was not required to file return of income and thus, the initially the assessee did not file his return of income. The assessee, however, filed computation of income under the belief that it would be sufficient compliance which is duly disclosed all the particulars of his income

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

exemption limit, hence he was under the bona fide belief that he was not required to file return of income and thus, the initially the assessee did not file his return of income. The assessee, however, filed computation of income under the belief that it would be sufficient compliance which is duly disclosed all the particulars of his income

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

exemption limit, hence he was under the bona fide belief that he was not required to file return of income and thus, the initially the assessee did not file his return of income. The assessee, however, filed computation of income under the belief that it would be sufficient compliance which is duly disclosed all the particulars of his income

M/S MAHESHWARI COAL BENEFICATION & INFRASTRUCTURE P LTD.,BILASPUR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), NAGPUR

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

exempt income on account of being LTCG. 3. A search was conducted u/s132 on 18-11-15 at the premises of the assessee (being Anand Kumar Jain (HUF), its coparceners and relatives) as well as at the premises of one Pradeep Kumar Jindal. During the search, statement of Pradeep Kumar Jindal was recorded on oath u/s132(4) on the same