DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

transfer of power from captive power plant of Rs. 28,22,44,096/-. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited (C. A. No. 13771 of 2015), when

DY. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), NAGPUR vs. GOPANI IRON AND POWER(INDIA) PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, all the grounds of appeal raised by revenue are rejected

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shrikhettra Mohan Roy

transfer of power from captive power plant of Rs. 28,22,44,096/-. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Jindal Steel and Power Limited (C. A. No. 13771 of 2015), when

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

22,000, and added the same under section 50C of the Act to the total income of the assessee. Being aggrieved the assessee filed appeal on the before the first appellate authority. 5. The learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under:– “OBSERVATION AND DECISION: Section 50C is as under [Special provision for full

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

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be,] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner,— (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made

GAJANAND FINANCIAL CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED,NAGPUR vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be had been subject matter of any appeal filed on or before after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under this sub-section shall extended and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matter as had not been considered and decided in such

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

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

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

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

JAGDISH KANHAIYALAL KHUSHALANI,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3) NAGPUR, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

22,32,000/- u/s. 50C of the Act and adopted the sale consideration value as per stamp duty valuation and re-calculated the capital gain, thereby making the impugned addition after taking note of the sale consideration of ₹ 5,00,000/- received by the assessee as against the stamp duty valuation of ₹ 27,32,000/- mentioned by the assessee

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

22,10,000/-. Thus, the appellant" even after passage of almost seven years, could not demonstrate with any concrete evidence as to show whether the net consideration realised from the sale of residential house has been utilised as per the scheme provided u/s 54 / 54F of the Act. Therefore, the AO is justified in denying the claim of the appellant

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

transferred to Share Capital was Rs.20,00,000 and to Share Premium was Rs.80,00,000. 2. Percentage of shareholding of the shareholders holding more than 5% of shares are as follows- Sr.No. Name of No. of shares % held Shareholder held as on 31/03/2013 1. Avinash Bhute 1,05,000 8.93 2. Nitin Bhute 2,62,000 22.29 3. Prashant

THE VIDHARBHA PREMIER CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD,,NAGPUR vs. TAX RECOVERY OFFICER, RANGE-6, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

22-11-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 9/1/2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : These are cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue emanating out of order of learned CIT(Appeals)-II, Nagpur dated 28-02-2012 and pertain to assessment year 2009-10. Grounds of appeal in Revenue’s appeal read as under: 1. On the facts

ITO, WARD-6(1),, NAGPUR vs. THE VIDARBHA PREMIER CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY,, NAGPUR

In the result these appeals by the assessee and revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes

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

22-11-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 9/1/2017. O R D E R. PER SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M. : These are cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue emanating out of order of learned CIT(Appeals)-II, Nagpur dated 28-02-2012 and pertain to assessment year 2009-10. Grounds of appeal in Revenue’s appeal read as under: 1. On the facts

RAMKRUSHNA ZILBAJI THAKRE ,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WRAD -4(4), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

price. The impossible requires to be rejected on the basis of common sense and probability. The documents in the form of Govt rates for stamp duty shows that market rate in relevant area is Rs.65,00,000 per hector. Thus value of said land which is roughly 2.5 hector comes to 1 crore 52 lakhs. No sane person will sale

JAI SHREE BALAJI SPINNING MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED,AKOLA vs. DCIT/ACIT AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms as indicated above

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

transfer pricing adjustment by 2 Jai Shree Balaji Spinning Mills P. Ltd. ITA no.23/Nag./2025 the Assessing Officer vide assessment order dated 24/01/2019, passed under section 143(3) r/w section 144(C(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The notice of hearing for today was sent to the assessee, however, the assessee neither appeared