MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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

149(1)(b) of the I T Act, 1961.\nSd/-\n(Naganath B Pasale, IRS)\nDy. Commissioner of Income Tax,\nCentral Circle-1(1), Pune\"\n4.\nAccordingly, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2018. The\nassessee in response to the same vide letter dated 11.09.2018 requested the\nAssessing Officer to consider the return of income filed

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

3, 4, 5 of legal compilation, it has been held that if the legal form of transfer of share is accepted, the capital loss is allowable. Secondly, in the case of Walfort, SC held that even if the assessee has intentionally sold the shares in order to book capital loss, the same is allowable as per law because assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH DANABHAI PATEL,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1534/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain arising from sale of aforesaid land. The ld. DR submitted that for claiming benefit of deduction 4 A.Y. 2012-13 u/s. 54B, it is mandatory that the land is used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer of such land took place. And agricultural activities should have been carried out either

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gains and also income from other sources and has not filed his return of income. As per information available on AIMS module of ITBA, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs.1,59,63,000/- and also purchased immovable property of Rs.90 lakh, and has deposited cash of Rs.42 lakh and has also paid

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

3 years from the end of the relevant A Y 2015-16, as it is below Rs.50.00 Lakhs as per section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the Notice issued by the JAO and the assessment 2\ndone thereafter are without jurisdiction, bad in law and therefore needs to be set aside.\n5.\nIn the facts

VITTHAL DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

SANDIP BHANUDAS TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

SOPAN DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

DNYANESHWAR DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

RAMDAS BHANUDASTUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

BADRINATH DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity

BHANUDAS DHONDIBA TUPE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2108/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sandip Bhanudas Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aampt1909M .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Sopan Dhondiba Tupe, S. No. 202, Sade-Stra-Nali, Near Vitthal Mandir, Hadapsar, Pune – 411028 Pan : Aajpt0436E .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.2110 & 2111/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2009-10

Capital Gain on sale of land to Binawat. 3.7 The ld. Counsel submitted that the authorities below have made additions without conducting proper enquiries. The ld. Counsel submitted that for proper adjudication on merits the appeals be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the facts. 4. The ld. Counsel raised additional ground challenging the validity