DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

144A of the Act vide letter dated 26.12.2016 who gave directions which have been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer confronted the directions given by the JCIT to the assessee. 7. The Assessing Officer noted that the Investigation Wing, Kolkata had conducted search and seizure action at the premises of entry

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

144A of the Act\nvide letter dated 26.12.2016 who gave directions which have been reproduced by\nthe Assessing Officer in the body of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer\nconfronted the directions given by the JCIT to the assessee.\nThe Assessing Officer noted that the Investigation Wing, Kolkata had\nconducted search and seizure action at the premises of entry operators

BHAGWAN RAGHUNATH PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

144A dt. 27-02-2015 for issuing directions in the matter of assessment under consideration. The said application has been reproduced by the A.O in the assessment order along with the copy of the directions issued by the Jt. C.I.T. The Jt. C.I.T. reiterating certain facts stated that, the 7/12 extract mentioned on the name of the assessee

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

section 50C is clearly inevitable and as per such provision of the Act the value of the sale consideration has to be accepted as per the valuation made of the property for stamp duty calculation. In this case since stamp duty was paid at a much higher rate and the registered documents itself has given the market price on which

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

144A of the Act vide letter dated 18.12.2019 for issuance of a direction on the issue of disallowance of allowability of long term capital loss arising on sale of shares of BSPL of Rs.922 crores. The ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 30.12.2019 given following directions :- ―(i) The loss on sale of shares of Rs.922 crore claimed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

144A of the Act vide letter dated 18.12.2019 for issuance of a direction on the issue of disallowance of allowability of long term capital loss arising on sale of shares of BSPL of Rs.922 crores. The ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 30.12.2019 given following directions :- ―(i) The loss on sale of shares of Rs.922 crore claimed

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain account, before due date of filing of ROI. As such even on this count you do not appear to be eligible to claim exemption u/s 54F for the second house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. SMITA ASHOK SONAWANE, NASHIK

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 2(14) of the Act, the said impugned land is not capital asset and accordingly no capital gain on sale of agricultural land is chargeable to tax. For the very same, reasons, the AO has, thus fallen into error by treating the stamp value of the impugned land as stamp value of non-agricultural land and thereby adding

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3, , PUNE vs. ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,, PUNE

144A, the AR of the assessee vide proceeding sheet entry dated 11.12.2017 was asked as to why the amount of Rs. 18,51,61,000/- credited to partners' capital account should not be treated as revenue receipt and added back to the total income of the assessee u/s. 28(ii)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also

ROHAN AND RAJDEEP INFRASTRUCTURE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

144A, the AR of the assessee vide proceeding sheet entry dated 11.12.2017 was asked as to why the amount of Rs. 18,51,61,000/- credited to partners' capital account should not be treated as revenue receipt and added back to the total income of the assessee u/s. 28(ii)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and also

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains\n3b\n0\nс.\nOther sources\n3c\n9360082\nd.\nu/s 115BBF\n3d\n0\ne.\nu/s 115BBG\n3e\n0\n4a\nProfit or loss included in 1, which is referred to in 4a\nsection\n0\n44AD/44ADA/44AE/44B/44BB/44BBA\n/44BBB/44D/44DA/44DB/First Schedule of Income-\ntax Act (other than profit from life insurance business\nreferred to in section 115B)\ni\n44AD\n4i\n0\n6\nBalance