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

term capital gain and claimed exemption under the Act. Respondent had claimed to have purchased this scrip at Rs.3.12/- per share in the year 2003 and sold the same in the year 2005 for Rs.155.04/- per share. It was A.O.'s case that investigation has revealed that the scrip was a penny stock and the capital gain declared was held

ACIT, CIRCLE-4, NAGPUR vs. SHRI VINOD BALBHADRA GOENKA,, NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2014-15 The Acit Vs. Shri Vinod Balbhadra Goenka Circle-4 247, Nandanvan Layout Nagpur Nagpur Pan No.:Aanpg 6841 N Appellant Respondent Revenue By :Shri Piyush Kolhe (Cit-Dr) Assessee By: Shri K.P. Dewani, Adv Date Of Hearing: 28/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 28 /06 /2022 Order Per: Sandeep Gosain, J.M. This Is An Appeal By Revenue Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Nagpur Dated 30/03/2017 In Appeal No.Cit(A)- 4/198/16-17 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue In This Appeal Are As Under:

transferred to DMAT account on 19.12.2012. The payment for same has been made through banking channels and the same is reflected in the bank statement of the appellant. The regular assessment for Asstt. Year 2013-14 was completed by A.O. on 01/03/2016 wherein the investment made in purchase of shares has been accepted without inviting any adverse observations

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

price of M/s. ParagShilp Infrastructure & Services Ltd. to enable to assessee to legitimize his unaccounted fund. x) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire gamut of direct & circumstantial evidence placed on record shows that claim of Long Term Capital Gain is Bogus in nature

ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(1), NAGPUR vs. SHRI NANDKUMAR KHATTUMAL HARCHANDANI , NAGPUR

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

price of M/s. Parag Shilp Infrastructure & Services Ltd. to enable to assessee to legitimize his unaccounted fund. x) On the facts and circumstances of the case & in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the entire gamut of direct & circumstantial evidence placed on record shows that claim of Long Term Capital Gain is Bogus in nature

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

gains received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the original asset; (b) "long-term specified asset" for making any investment under this section during the period commencing from the 1st day of April, 2006 and ending with the 31st day of March, 2007, means any bond, redeemable after three years and issued on or after

M/S SHREE TRADERS ,BULDHANA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AKOLA CIRCLE, AKOLA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

price, Long Term and Short Term Capital Gain and also copies of sale deed with comments in disclosure of accounting policies and notes to accounts. It is noted, according to the assessee, by sale of fixed assets belonging to the assessee as land, building, plant and machineries and capital gain earned thereon is nothing but profits from business which

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

NARESH VASANTRAJ TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

NARESH VASANTRAI TRIVEDI,NAGPUR vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), NAGPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

short term capital gain that too without giving benefit of cost of acquisition of ` 27,531. We also find that the learned Counsel also filed two purchase bills wherein the year of purchases is 1998. In view of this, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the long term capital gain as enunciated below:– Sale Consideration ` 93,500 Less:– Index

DY.C.I.T. CIR 1, NAGPUR vs. SHRI MOHAN B. AGRAWAL, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

short term capital transaction. It is also significant to mention that the learned AO of one of the co-owners has accepted the transaction on identical facts as long term transaction. Therefore, the transaction in question is directed to be treated as long term capital gain transaction.” 4. Against the above order, Revenue is in appeal before

ASSTT. CIT, CIR- 7, NAGPUR vs. M/S. NEWQUEST CORPORATION LTD., CHANDRAPUR

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am Assessment Year: 2008-2009 The Acit Vs. M/S.Newquest Corporation Ltd. Circle-7, (Now Known As M/S. Avantha Nagpur Holding Ltd. Ballalrpur Paper Mills P.O. Ballarpur, Distt. Chandrapur Pan No.:Aabcb 6134 E Appellant Respondent

price of Rs.7 Crore. From a detailed review of the aforesaid financial arrangement, one can easily ascertain that the net loss suffered by the assessee company is loss Rs.9,26,00,000/- on transfer of shares owned by the assessee in I-BILT.’’ 7 ACIT, CIRCLE-7, NAGPUR VS M/s. Newquest Corporation Ltd. (Now known as Avantha Holdings

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

short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) dated 29.12.2017 by the ACIT, Circle-4, Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1

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

short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order ITA Nos. 220/NAG/2023 (Indrakumar Ghisulal Agrawal) passed u/s. 143(3) dated 26.12.2017 by the ITO, Ward-4(1), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

transferred to the family members and/or existing shareholders of the group and not to any outsider. In this regard, the assessee filed the explanation vide letter dt. 01/11/2012.”. 5. Being aggrieved, the matter was carried to CIT (Appeals). The assessee has made a detailed submission before the CIT(A) as contained in Dayal Agro Products Ltd vs. JCIT, Akola

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

short, “Act”) which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, dated 26.12.2019 by the ITO, Ward-1(5), Nagpur for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

Term Capital Gains is warranted. The findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are accordingly, set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed.” It would be relevant to mention here that the aforementioned decision was rendered with reference to provisions of Section 50C of the Act. The addition in the instant case is made u/s 43CA