MR. RAJESH ANIRUDHA PATIL,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

capital gain made by the Assessing Officer is not justified. It was submitted that the CPC has substituted the stamp duty valuation as against actual consideration received by the assessee which is outside the scope of provisions of section 143(1

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 merely on the basis of the information received through the Insight portal from DDIT(Inv.) Unit 3(3) Delhi and there was no independent application of mind by Assessing Officer to arrive reason to believe that income

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

143(1) of the Act is on account of non-consideration of the revised Tax Audit Report filed by the Assessee. 6. Provisions of Chapter XIIB are independent and TP adjustments, if any, ought not be made to the deemed total income computation under section 115JB 6.1 The NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in law and on facts by carrying

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the\ntotal income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of\nRs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of\n\nlong term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act\nafter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital\ngain to which the assessee has replied and thereafter the Assessing Officer has\npassed the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153B of the Act accepting such exempt long term\ncapital gain. Therefore, the assessment in our opinion could not have been\nreopened u/s 148 of the Act for the same transaction in absence of any fresh\ntangible material

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

RAJANI PRAKASH KASHID,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 20.12.2018 on total income of Rs.49,41,380/- including therein an addition of Rs.49,32,500/- on account of long term capital gain. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and endorsed the findings

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and subsequent

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

capitalization of the part of the\ninterest expenditure in WIP. He also relied on the following decisions:\ni)\nBajaj Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 216\nii)\nDCIT vs. Sanathnagar Enterprise Ltd. (2022) 139 taxmann.com 557\n(Mumbai – Trib.)\niii)\n`DCIT vs. Lodha Developers Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 442 (Mumbai –\nTrib.)\n35. We have heard the rival arguments

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

1. Accommodation loan entries\n9\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n6.2.1 The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 148 of the act\non 28/12/2018 by making a total addition of Rs 2,79,78,912/-. The addition of this\namount has been made by the assessing officer by arriving at the figure of net\ncredit

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

1. Accommodation loan entries\n9\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\n6.2.1 The AO passed the assessment order under section 143(3) rws 148 of the act\non 28/12/2018 by making a total addition of Rs 2,79,78,912/-. The addition of this\namount has been made by the assessing officer by arriving at the figure of net\ncredit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, to which the assessee replied from time to time. 2 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has e-mailed Deed of Assignment dated

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

143(1) by CPC. It is observed that there are different columns for disclosing short term capital gain. For example, short term capital gain taxable at the rate of 15% or 30% and another column is short term capital gain taxable at applicable rates but it appears that the assessee has not filled in 8 short term capital gain taxable

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

143 or total income assessed, reassessed or recomputed in a preceding order. (11) No addition or disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis of Imposition of penalty in the case of the person for the same or any other assessment year. (12) The penalty referred

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

1. We enclose herewith confirmation of parties for the year under assessment. 2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

1. We enclose herewith confirmation of parties for the year under assessment. 2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

1. We enclose herewith confirmation of parties for the year under assessment. 2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

1. We enclose herewith confirmation of parties for the year under assessment. 2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds