DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VIVEK VINAYAK VAIDYA, NAGPUR

In the result appeal of the Revenue is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.33/Nag/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Vivek Vinayak Vaidya, Commissioner Of Income V 46-B, Krushna Krupa Reat Tax, Circle-4, Nagpur. S Nag Road, Imamwada, Nagpur – 440003. Pan: Aakpv3808M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/Revenue Assessee By Shri Mahavir Atal – Ca Revenue By Shri Rajat Singhal – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 22/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22/11/2023

9) of section 10B. In the matter of General Finance Co. v. ACIT, which judgment has also been taken note of by the tribunal while repelling the contention raised by revenue with regard to retrospectivity of section 92BA(i) of the Act. Thus, when clause (i) of Section 92BA having been omitted by the Finance Act, 2017, with effect from

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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

AVANTHA HOLDINGS LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. A.C.I.T. CIR-5,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act 1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is unjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for not allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of redemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

section 40(a)(ia) of I.T. Act\n1961 cannot be invoked. The reasons for disallowance given by A.O. is\nunjustified and has correctly being held by CIT(A) to be not a valid reason for\nnot allowing the claim of deduction. It is also noted that at the time of date of\nredemption due compliance of tax deducted at source

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

9. Another aspect that is required to be considered is that the section contemplates user of agricultural land in the two years immediately preceding the date of transfer and therefore, the reference is to the years and not during the whole period of two years as viewed by the authorities. In other words, if the asset has been used

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty.] (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance

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

9. Moreover, even if assume that the closing stock i.e. work-in- progress is in excess of that recorded/disclosed by the Respondent, the same has to be added to the income only under Section 69A of the Act as held by this Court in Dialust v. DCIT 261 ITR 456. In fact, the impugned order of the Tribunal places reliance

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

price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any other law for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposes of the payment of stamp duty. (3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section

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

9. It is humbly prayed that when the principal securities market regulator, SEBI, has confirmed that there is no price rigging, it is not tenable for the Income Tax Department, which does not have jurisdiction under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 to identify

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

9. It is humbly prayed that when the principal securities market regulator, SEBI, has confirmed that there is no price rigging, it is not tenable for the Income Tax Department, which does not have jurisdiction under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 to identify

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

9. It is humbly prayed that when the principal securities market regulator, SEBI, has confirmed that there is no price rigging, it is not tenable for the Income Tax Department, which does not have jurisdiction under the Securities and Exchange Board of India (Prohibition of Fraudulent and Unfair Trade Practices relating to Securities Market) Regulations, 2003 to identify