DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

148 vis-a-vis Section 153A and Section 153 are quite compartmentalized. To avoid any overlapping of these provisions, the legislature in its wisdom has thought it appropriate to provide for an independent effect, to be given under Section 153A read with Section 153C by incorporating the "non-obstante" clause, in these provisions, which carves out an exception

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

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

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

2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming an addition of capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Limited of Rs.85,38,145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section

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

148 on 22.03.2018 which was served on the assessee on 02.04.2018. However, the assessee failed to respond to the said notice. Hence, another notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 19.10.2018 and served upon the assessee requesting to file compliance by 30.10.2018. In response thereto, the assessee submitted a copy of return filed on 21.11.2018 showing

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 54B of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the capital gain on transfer of land. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the CIT (Appeals) have erred in considering year of transfer of capital asset and charging it to tax in the Assessment Year 2017-18. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

148 of the Act dated 20.03.2023 was issued in 2 response to which the assessee filed her return of income on 20.04.2023 admitting the total income of Rs.8,84,680/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

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

Capital Account, Balance Sheet,\nIncome and Expenditure Statement)\n26\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nb) Reply to notice dated 31.01.2014 u/s 143(2) and 142(1) – Documents enclosed\nare:\ni. Ledgers in our books\na) Ledger of Abhilasha Exports Pvt. Ltd.\nb) Ledger of Divyadrishti Merchants Pvt. Ltd.\nc) Ledger of Divyadrishti Traders Pvt. Ltd.\nd) Ledger of Parmeshwar Merchandise

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

Capital Account, Balance Sheet,\nIncome and Expenditure Statement)\n26\nITA No.1178/PUN/2023\nITA No.2017/PUN/2024\nb) Reply to notice dated 31.01.2014 u/s 143(2) and 142(1) – Documents enclosed\nare:\ni. Ledgers in our books\na) Ledger of Abhilasha Exports Pvt. Ltd.\nb) Ledger of Divyadrishti Merchants Pvt. Ltd.\nc) Ledger of Divyadrishti Traders Pvt. Ltd.\nd) Ledger of Parmeshwar Merchandise

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

capital gains from compensation or enhanced compensation from land acquisition, but not on interest on such compensation. In the present instance, the amount represents interest on enhanced compensation, but the compensation or enhanced compensation itself. Thirdly, reference is made to Section 57 (iv) rws 56(2)(viii). Section 57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned

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

2. First we take up ITA No.147/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 in case of Ashish Omprakash Mantri as the lead case. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 26.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.15,08,324/- and long term capital gain on sale

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

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

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

2. First we take up ITA No.147/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 in case of Ashish Omprakash Mantri as the lead case. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 26.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.15,08,324/- and long term capital gain on sale

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

2. First we take up ITA No.147/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 in case of Ashish Omprakash Mantri as the lead case. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 26.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.15,08,324/- and long term capital gain on sale

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

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

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

2. First we take up ITA No.147/PUN/2024 for assessment year 2011-12 in case of Ashish Omprakash Mantri as the lead case. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his original return of income on 26.03.2012 declaring total income at Rs.15,08,324/- and long term capital gain on sale