DY. C.I.T. CIR-.5, NAGPUR vs. M/S AVANTHA HOLDINGS LTD.,, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

11, in an appeal filed by the Revenue in ACIT v/s Newquest Corporation Ltd. (now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd.), ITA no.330/Nag./2014, vide order dated 28/06/2022, wherein the Tribunal has decided the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by observing as follows:-\n6\nAvantha Holdings Ltd.\nITA no.45/Nag./2016\nITA no.248/Nag./2016\nITA no.354/Nag./2023

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NAGPUR vs. AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED, CHANDRAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

11, in an appeal filed by the Revenue in ACIT v/s\nNewquest Corporation Ltd. (now known as Avantha Holdings Ltd.), ITA\nno.330/Nag./2014, vide order dated 28/06/2022, wherein the Tribunal has\ndecided the issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee by\nobserving as follows:-\n“15.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available

SUNIL NARAYANDAS KHATOD ,AKOLA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.134/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sunil Narayndas Khatod, The Commissioner Of Nagpuri Gin Compound, Vs Income Tax-1, Behind Old Cotton Market, Nagpur. Nagpur – 444001. Pan: Adepk3087C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajesh V.Loya – Ca Revenue By Shri Kailash G. Kanojiya – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2023

Price of “Specified 6 Sunil Narayandas Khatod [A] Domestic Transactions”. The Section 92BA was amended by Finance Act, 2017, the pre-amended section 92BA as on 2014 is reproduced here under : 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, “specified domestic transaction” in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions

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]

transfers the property to A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market value of the property as on the date of resale, if, in the mean-while, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed price by more

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

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

11. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Ramesh Narhari Jakhadi Vs. Income Tax Officer (supra) to suggest that it is not necessary that the land should have used for agricultural purposes for full two years immediately preceding the date of transfer. Even if the land is used

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

11,34,325 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant

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

11,34,325 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant

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

11,34,325 under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") holding short term capital gain considered to be not genuine. 5. During first appeal proceedings, the learned CIT(A) granted relief by holding as follows:– “5.1.2. Thus, on perusal of submissions made by the Appellant and the assessment order, following undisputed facts emerge:  The Appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER , NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),NAGPUR, NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSTT.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S RADHA MADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), NAGPUR vs. M/S. RADHA RADHAV DEVELOPER, NAGPUR

In the result, all the six appeals preferred by the department are dismissed

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

transfer price audit report and other relevant evidence also. Further, after delivery, there is an unexplained expenditure in the hands of the appellant. This must be to suppress the turnover in the hands of Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Sufalam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., was also subject to search proceeding u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 and assessment orders

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

transfer by an assessee of a capital asset" as income taxable u/s 50C. The assessing officer has applied the legal provisions of section 50C and the appellant has not questioned the legal provisions. The arguments raised by the appellant are The Assessing officerhas not brought any evidence on record to show thatthe assessee has received any money other than thesale

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

transfer is shown at a lesser figure than that actually received 15. Assessee hereby further submits that there is no doubt that share premium receipt is always a capital receipt (CIT v Stellar 251 ITR 263 (SC); Lowry v. Consolidated African Selection Trust 8 ITR Suppl 88). However, it is only because of the deeming fiction provided in such sections