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

153C, as the case may be, as they stood immediately before the\ncommencement of the Finance Act, 2021. As per the old provisions of section\n148, the case of the assessee could not have been reopened beyond four years from\nthe end of the relevant assessment year since there was no allegation of any failure\non the part

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

2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 467 (Mad) ii) Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. vs. CIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 91 (Ker) iii) PCIT vs. Aacharan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 745 (Raj.) iv) Famina Knit Fabs

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

2) of section 115BBE by the Finance Act, 2016 would be applicable from 01.04.2017 i.e. A.Y. 2017-18 only: i) Shree Karthik Papers Ltd. vs. DCIT (2020) 118 taxmann.com 467 (Mad) ii) Vijaya Hospitality and Resorts Ltd. vs. CIT (2020) 114 taxmann.com 91 (Ker) iii) PCIT vs. Aacharan Enterprises (P.) Ltd. (2020) 117 taxmann.com 745 (Raj.) iv) Famina Knit Fabs

ANIL BANSILAL LODHA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital gain was to be taxed u/s. 112A of the Act, particularly when the exemption u/s. 10(38) was withdrawn from the next assessment year and the provisions of section 112A were inserted from next assessment year. 4. On the basis of the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the order passed by the Principal

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

2% on the amount of accommodation entry\ntaken of Rs.10,42,46,373/-, which comes to Rs.20,84,927/-. The same is also\nrequired to be added to the total income of the assessee.\n6.4 Interest Expenditure claimed thereon:\nFurther, it was also observed that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure on\nthese accommodation loan entries in its ITR returns

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

2% on the amount of accommodation entry\ntaken of Rs.10,42,46,373/-, which comes to Rs.20,84,927/-. The same is also\nrequired to be added to the total income of the assessee.\n6.4 Interest Expenditure claimed thereon:\nFurther, it was also observed that the assessee has claimed interest expenditure on\nthese accommodation loan entries in its ITR returns

HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

2. First we take up ITA No.1933/PUN/2024 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 26.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs.30,63,633/-. On the basis of information that the assessee is a beneficiary of long term capital gain / loss or short term

AKASH HARESHKUMAR JAIN,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

2. First we take up ITA No.1933/PUN/2024 as the lead case. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has filed his return of income on 26.09.2018 declaring total income at Rs.30,63,633/-. On the basis of information that the assessee is a beneficiary of long term capital gain / loss or short term

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

Capital Gain o Income from other source 7. A search action u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the residence of Assessee-Shamkant Keshav Kotkar along with other Nandan Group Cases on 03.02.2021. Therefore, Assessee’s case was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Pune by the Competent Authority. A notice u/s.153A dated 14.12.2021 for A.Y.2017-18

RAM VINOD AGRAWAL,DHULE vs. CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Appellant order passed u/s.250 of I T Act DT.26/10/2023 being passed arbitrarily without considering statement of facts, ground of appeals, & uploaded written arguments filed with additional legal ground- vide e- proceedings Response Acknowledgement Number: 435313991241023 dt.24/10/2023. Therefore, impugned order passed u/s.250 dt.16/10/2023

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

153C of the Act has a DIN, which is set out therein. Even if this is held to be in compliance with paragraph 5 of the Circular, which deals with regularization of communications without DIN, this can only seek to regularize the failure to generate a DIN, but yet the requirements of paragraph 3 of the Circular will still remain

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

capital gains under general law, normally, the ownership of title of the immovable property would pass on to the purchaser on the registration of the sale deed from date of execution of sale deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC). But, this is not an absolute

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

capital gains under general law, normally, the ownership of title of the immovable property would pass on to the purchaser on the registration of the sale deed from date of execution of sale deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC). But, this is not an absolute