ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. MADHURI SUNIL KOTECHA,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

158. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) now, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. 3. Shri Achal Sharma representing the Department submitted that the additions made during assessment which are subject matter of penalty 3 ITA No. 1243/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2006-07 proceedings were confirmed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide order dated

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

158 ITR 636 (Guj.) 4. Dhruv N. Shah 88 ITD 118 (Mumb Trib.) 12. We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on the issue of taxability of capital gain u/s.2(47) of the Act. We have also perused the decisions relied on by both the representatives. This is the appeal by the Revenue

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

capital gain on the ground that the appellant had made investment in construction of new bungalow prior to the date of transfer of original asset without appreciating that the said disallowance was not warranted on facts and in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the investment in the impugned asset was made within a reasonable period

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

Capital Gain Tax on total consideration mentioned in the agreement of Rs.20 crores after reducing index cost of acquisition. AO also denied assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F stating that no details were filed. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gains which was deposited in the bank account for the purpose of construction. It is assessee’s submission that he had furnished all the required details in the return of income and no information given in the return of income is incorrect or inaccurate. The aforesaid contentions of the assessee have not been found to be false. He therefore

MRS. ARUNA J KAPSE, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

158 BD has been challenged without any formal application for admitting additional ground, we are deciding this issue. 8. During the course of search proceedings in the case of Laddha Group, documents relating to sale of shares of Vastukripa Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. were found and seized. Sh. Prakash Laddha and his wife Smt. Aruna P. Laddha had purchased

SHRI JANARDAN R KAPSE, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE,1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals of assessees are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

158 BD has been challenged without any formal application for admitting additional ground, we are deciding this issue. 8. During the course of search proceedings in the case of Laddha Group, documents relating to sale of shares of Vastukripa Construction (I) Pvt. Ltd. were found and seized. Sh. Prakash Laddha and his wife Smt. Aruna P. Laddha had purchased

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

capital gains. This claim of excess expense in this regard, in my opinion, when surrendered by the appellant by realizing such wrong claim, initially made due to inadvertence, cannot be held as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as has been held by the AO while levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I further find that

SMT. RATNAPRABHA SATISH MUTHAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Ratnaprabha Satish Muthal, At Post Hirawadi, Panchawati, Nashik. अपीऱाथी/Appellant Pan: Buipm6016K …. Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (4), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

158 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. Whatever is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Ratnaprabha Satish Muthal (Affiant) Place – Nashik Date – 16.05.2017” 3. On perusal of contents of Affidavit, it is noted that since the assessee was un-educated old woman and was suffering

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

gains nor depreciation on goodwill. The AO had\ncited various Judicial pronouncements in support of the stand taken by him\nin the assessment order.\n7.2.2 The appellant company in its submission during appellate proceeding\nhas submitted that as per Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 16 April\n2016 YAPL and ADEPL were amalgamated into the appellant company with\neffect

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

M/S. NANDA TOURS AND TRAVELS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1102/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

capital gain on the basis of stamp value. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the AO ought to have referred the matter to the Departmental Valuation Officer (DVO) for substitution of the stamp value with the value to be worked out by the Departmental Valuer. The ld. CIT(A) did not find such a request having been

G M KENJALE CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 G M Kenjale Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), 22, Parvati, Pune – 411 009 Pune Pan : Aaacg6186E

gains’. Section 43CA provides that where the consideration received or accruing as the result of transfer of an asset (other than capital asset), being, land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable for stamp duty, then such value shall be deemed to be the full value of consideration received or accruing

MRS. PURNIMA PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.234 & 235/Jpr/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Mrs. Purnima Patni, The Ito, Ward-3(4), Jaipur. Plot No.604A, Akashganga Vs Society, Rahetani, Pimple . Soudagar, Pune – 411017. Pan: Adupp 9192 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: 1. These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arise Against The Cit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In Case No.S:92/2013-14 & 189/2013-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

section 144 assessment dated 26.12.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order reading as follows: “(iv) The relevant extract of rejoinder of the AR to the remand report of the AO is reproduced as under: The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.23,24,000 in her bank account in cash as detailed below

MRS. PURNIMA PATNI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), JAIPUR

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.234 & 235/Jpr/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 Mrs. Purnima Patni, The Ito, Ward-3(4), Jaipur. Plot No.604A, Akashganga Vs Society, Rahetani, Pimple . Soudagar, Pune – 411017. Pan: Adupp 9192 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: 1. These Assessee’S Twin Appeals For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arise Against The Cit(A)-1, Jaipur’S Separate Orders; Both Dated 09.11.2017, Passed In Case No.S:92/2013-14 & 189/2013-14 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 & 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”), Respectively.

section 144 assessment dated 26.12.2011 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order reading as follows: “(iv) The relevant extract of rejoinder of the AR to the remand report of the AO is reproduced as under: The appellant had deposited a sum of Rs.23,24,000 in her bank account in cash as detailed below

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gain. Hence, the expenditure incurred cannot be treated asRevenue expenditure since there is a transfer of business and the amounts paid are capital in nature. The saidorder was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. The Appellate Tribunal after re-examining the matter indetail, relying upon the various judgments of the various High Courts as well as the Supreme Court held

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of employees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive and loose document found at the residential premises of employee has also been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement given