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

exemption is complied with.‖ 13. Decision of ITAT, Pune Bench, in the case of Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi v/s ITO in ITA No.36/Pune/1990 for the assessment year 1986-87 order dated 20/02/1992 reported at [1992] 41 ITD 0368, also supports the submission of assessee in the case of assessee agricultural land is sold on 22/03/2017. In respect to earlier 14 SushilaBhauraoDeshmukh

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3),, NAGPUR vs. M/S. 21ST CENTURY INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

transfer pricing adjustment. It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned writ petition. In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decided of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this issue

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

price of M/s. ParagShilp Infrastructure & Services Ltd. to enable to assessee to legitimize his unaccounted fund. x) 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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

transferred to the beneficiary at a very nominal price through preferential allotment or off-line sales and the prices of these shares are rigged by the dummy operators. 2 ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR VS SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA iii. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the findings of the SEBI, holding that SEBI orders are against companies

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-CC-2(1), NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. INDRAKUMAR GHISULAL AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

exempt income. He furnished written submissions with a prayer to consider the totality of circumstances as transactions are shown to be very complex and where meeting of mind cannot be established. Reliance has been placed on judicial precedents as discussed in the written gist of submissions. He referred to modus operandi as indicated in the assessment order on the basis

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. SHIKHA INDRAKUMAR AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Roy

exempt income. The learned Departmental Representative furnished written submission with a prayer that the Tribunal is requested to consider the totality of circumstances as transactions are shown to be very complex and where meeting of mind cannot be established. Reliance has been placed on judicial precedents as discussed in the written gist of submission. He has referred to modus operandi

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

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

transfer of the original asset. In the case of the appellant it was seen by the Ld. AO that the appellant had acquired one property on 12-09-2008 and on perusal of the schedule of property as stated in the purchase document it was a house being a residential house bearing city of Nagpur Corporation No. 706, City Survey

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

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

Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Supreme Court way back in 1979 in CIT Andhra Pradesh vs. T.N. Aravinda Reddy (1979) 4 SCC 721, however, gave it a wider meaning and it was held that the payment made for execution of release deed by the brother thereby joint ownership became separate ownership for price paid would be covered by the word

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

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.

exempt as the land is an agricultural land. In the present case, it is undisputed a non-agricultural land and the transaction has been treated as taxable as LTCG. The Appellant is in business for sure 5 ITA41/NAG/2017 DHIRAJ RAMBHAU LINGADE VS ACIT, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA but not in the business of trading in land but that of running