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

long term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act. Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year 2003 and sold the same in the year 2005 for Rs.155.04/- per share. It was A.O.'s case that investigation has revealed that the scrip was a penny stock and the capital gain declared

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

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

price of M/s. Parag Shilp 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

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, 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:

price rigging based upon analysis of increase in share values. The A.O. has discussed role of share brokers in arranging long term capital gain. The Assessing Officer has recorded statement u/s 131 of the assessee which is reproduced by the A.O. on Page 20 to 27 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer examined the scope of section

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

gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset; (b) "long-term specified asset" for making any investment under this section during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2006 and ending with the 31st day of March, 2007, means any bond, redeemable after three years and issued on or after

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

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

price of Rs.7 Crore. From a detailed review of the aforesaid financial arrangement, one can easily ascertain that the net loss suffered by the assessee company is loss Rs.9,26,00,000/- on transfer of shares owned by the assessee in I-BILT.’’ 7 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

price, Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain and also copies of sale deed with comments in disclosure of accounting policies and notes to accounts. It is noted, according to the assessee, by sale of fixed assets belonging to the assessee as land, building, plant and machineries and capital gain earned thereon is nothing but profits from business which

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

long-term capital gain arising on sale of shares is concluded to be non-assessable as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of general reports of the Investigation Wing or on the theory of human probabilities. The Tribunal further held that in the absence of any direct evidence linking

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

term capital gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital gains

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

term capital gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital gains

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

term capital gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital gains

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

term capital gains from sale of flat without complying with the requirements of section 50C including but not limited to referring the valuation to the valuation officer as is statutorily required to be done under law. The invocation of section 50C is thus bad in law and the same deserves to be ignored for calculation of capital gains

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

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

long term capital gain (LTCG) of Rs.1,32,68,850/- and claimed the same as being exempt u/s 10(38) of Act in respect to sale of shares of M/s.GCM Securities Ltd. Assessee purchased 24000 shares of M/s.GCM Securities Ltd. for Rs.4,80,000/-. The shares have been sold at stock exchange through Registered Stock Broker. The total sale proceeds

DY.C.I.T. CIR 1, NAGPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN B. AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

long term capital gain. In this regard learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shri Sanjeev Lal Etc. vs. CIT 365 ITR 389. Learned counsel further referred to the amendment in section 50C by Finance Act 2016 and referred to the following amendment : “Amendment by the Finance Act, 2016. By Finance

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

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

long term capital gain in the sale consideration of immovable property is not allowable as expenses incurred by the assessee towards the cost of improvement and therefore the capital gain is hereby worked out as under: Capital Gain 1. Capital gain on sale of Residential Property – MANKAPUR Sale/Transfer Price as on 02/05/2017 80,50,000 Shabbir Ahmed Ahmed

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