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

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 under

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

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 under

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

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 under

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

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 under

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

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 under

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

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 under

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

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

Price as on 02/05/2017 80,50,000 Value adopted or assessed by Stamp Valuation adopted or assessed by Stamp Valuation Authority 02/05/2017 80,50,000 Deemed value of the asset being greater of the above two (sec.50C) 80,50,000 Less: Indexed Cost of Acquisition (108000x272/129) 22,77,209 (Coat as on 25/04/2007 – ` 10,80,000) Indexed cost of improvement

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

UDAYKUMAR VYAS,NAGPUR vs. ITO WARD 1 (5), BSNL RTTC BUILDING

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Khettra Mohan Royudaykumar Vyas, Ito, Ward – 1(5) Flat No. 402, Lepresting Vs Nagpur Apartment, Plot No. 105- 106, Ramdaspeth, Nagpur. Pan : Aarpv 4578 K Assessee Respondent

price. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual, engaged in the business of land development and plot trading, filed his return of income for AY 2013-14 declaring total income

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

50,00,000/-. The difference between the two, i.e., Rs.57,68,020/– is more than 10% of the actual sale consideration and therefore the appellant's case clearly falls under the purview of section 43CA of the Act. In the written submission filed by the appellant's AR, it has been argued that section 43CA cannot be applied

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

50,00,000/-. The difference between the two, i.e., Rs.57,68,020/– is more than 10% of the actual sale consideration and therefore the appellant's case clearly falls under the purview of section 43CA of the Act. In the written submission filed by the appellant's AR, it has been argued that section 43CA cannot be applied

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

50/-(-) Book Value Rs. 33.87) on 2 lakh shares under sec. 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as Income from other sources without providing any opportunity to the assessee to choose the options given for valuation of shares under Rule 11UA during the course of assessment. 8. That the Assessing officer has placed his reliance only

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

50 of assessee’s Paper Book wherein the assessee after having paid the amount pursuant to auction of NIT for purchase of plot requested of grant of lease deed so that the assessee can submit building plan for approval with local authorities. The NIT delayed the process of lease deed inspite of the fact that the full payment has been

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

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

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

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

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

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 (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) Kolkata Stock Exchange. Pursuant to sale of shares the said broker had also issued contract notes cum bill for sale and these contract notes

VIRAMBHAI HARGOVANBHAI PATEL,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

price, the provisions of sec. 56(2)(x) of the I.T.Act are applicable. 7.5 The Provisions of Section 56(2)(x) reads as under: …………….. (x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons on or after the 1st day of April, 2017:- (a)any sum of money, without consideration, the aggregate value of which exceeds