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

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 appeal

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

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the Act') which is arising out of rectification order dated 11.09.2020 passed u/s. 154 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2019-20 (A.Y.) 2. The sole grievance of the assessee is against the addition u/s. 50C of the Act at ₹ 22,32,000/- for the difference in stamp duty valuation

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price. The difference within tolerance band of 10% and the application of such band will relate from 01/04/2014. The case of the assessee is covered by the order dated 02/07/2021, passed by the Co– ordinate Bench rendered in Stalwart Impex Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.5752/ Mum./2019, for the assessment year 2016–17. The relevant part of the order

SHREE MAYA REAL ESTATE PVT. LTD.,NAGPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

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

price. The difference within tolerance band of 10% and the application of such band will relate from 01/04/2014. The case of the assessee is covered by the order dated 02/07/2021, passed by the Co– ordinate Bench rendered in Stalwart Impex Pvt. Ltd. v/s ITO, ITA no.5752/ Mum./2019, for the assessment year 2016–17. The relevant part of the order

DAYAL AGRO PRODUCTS LTD,AKOLA vs. JCIT, AKOLA RANGE, AKOLA

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-1, Nagpur, [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2010-11. Dayal Agro Products Ltd vs. JCIT, Akola ITA no.201/Nag./2017 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHUBHLAXMI LAND DEVELOPERS,NAGPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(5), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

250 only on the basis of Remand Report submitted by the AO without considering the allotment letters with the corresponding audited financial statements and the nature of business of the appellant is not according to the principles of natural justice. 3 Shubhlaxmi Land Developers ITA no.362/Nag./2023 3. The Appellant prays to allow it to add, alter, amend, modify and/or

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), NAGPUR vs. SHRI WAMAN MAHADEORAO SARODE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

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

price which was pre-decided in the year 2009 and further the possession of land was handed over to the assessee in the year 2009. The transfer took place in the year 2009 and not in the year 2014-15, as contemplated by the Ld. Assessing Officer. 1. The assesses in this regard not only submitted notarized possession letter dated

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–3, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016- 17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20 and 2020-21. 2 Maheshwari Coal Beneficatgion & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. A.Y. 2014–15 to 2020–21 2. A search and seizure action

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

price more than the normal, sale of prevailing sales can be regarded as capital assets. Thus, the assessee’s case was reopened under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") by issuing notice 04/01/2019, under section 148 of the Act in response to the which, the assessee, on 08/02/2019, filed her return of income for the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

250 shares of such company there is no case for the A.O. to hold that any amount is paid in cash to Shri Atul Yamsanwar. It is worthwhile to note that the A.O. has accepted purchase price of shares of appellant from Shri Atul Yamsanwar in A.Y. 2017-18 at Rs. 12.66 per share and in A.Y.2020-21

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), NAGPUR vs. DEEPAK SURESH GADGE, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

250 shares of such company there is no case for the A.O. to hold that any amount is paid in cash to Shri Atul Yamsanwar. It is worthwhile to note that the A.O. has accepted purchase price of shares of appellant from Shri Atul Yamsanwar in A.Y. 2017-18 at Rs. 12.66 per share and in A.Y.2020-21

I.T.O. WARD -1, AMRAVATI vs. SHRI SANJAY NANASAHEB BHARSAKALE, AMRAVATI

In the result, the appeal of the department is rejected

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the IT Act") by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nagpur, [“learned CIT”], for the assessment year 2011-12, emanating against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, by ITO, Ward-1, Amravati, on 23/03/2015. ITO Ward-1 Amravati vs. Sanjay Nanasaheb Bharsakale ITA no.81/Nag./18