ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC). In that case, the assessing officer made additions undersections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators', by rejectingthe assessee's revised return claiming exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC). In that case, the assessing officer made additions undersections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators', by rejectingthe assessee's revised return claiming exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

capital gain. The authorities held that the assessee had not tendered cogent evidence to explain as to how the shares in an unknown company worth Rs.5/- had jumped to Rs.485/- in no time. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal held that the fantastic sale price was not at all possible as there was no economic or financial basis

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

160 taxmann.com 608 (SC). In that case, the assessing officer made additions undersections 68 and 69 by relying on statements from 'entry operators', by rejectingthe assessee's revised return claiming exemption under section 10(38) for long-term capital gains

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

capital gains arising out of sale of different shares as fair and transparent by submitting records of purchase bills, sale bills, demat statement etc., same not being earned from bogus companies was eligible for exemption under section 10(38). 27. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs Renu

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

capital gains from the transactions which she claimed as exempt from taxation u/s 10 clause (38) of the Act. This entire edifice was absolutely a colourable device to give the colour of genuineness of these transactions to which she was successful in bringing back her own unaccounted cash into her books without the need to pay any taxes

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Section 45(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) held that the conversion of stock-in-trade into investment cannot be considered as transfer. The Assessing Officer observed that there are no specific provisions u/s.45 dealing with conversion of stock-in-trade into capital assets. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased

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

Capital gain on account of sale of immovable property. It means the Notice u/s 148 was issued just for verification. There have been changes in the 'reopening' procedure in 2021. After the amendment Section 148A was introduced w.e.f01/04/2021. The section 148A is as under :\n“148A. The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice\nunder section 148,—\n(a) conduct

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gains in the long term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. It was held that in absence of an express provision contained in these sections that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only, any such interpretation were to be placed, it amounts to Court introducing

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gains in the long term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. It was held that in absence of an express provision contained in these sections that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only, any such interpretation were to be placed, it amounts to Court introducing

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1727/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

160/- and thereafter, granted deduction towards indexed cost of acquisition at Rs.2,36,860/-. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the non- granting of exemption u/s.54F and not granting deduction of Rs.25.00 lakh which was paid by the assessee to other co-owners

BHIMA DADA KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Capital Gain as per additions/disallowance appearing in the Assessing Officer’s order. 4. The matter, thereafter, travelled upto the First Appellate Authority and the assessee had filed detailed submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeal). The Ld. CIT(Appeal) after considering the assessment order, submissions of the A.Y.2011-12 assessee, upheld the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal

BALU VITTHAL KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Capital Gain as per additions/disallowance appearing in the Assessing Officer’s order. 4. The matter, thereafter, travelled upto the First Appellate Authority and the assessee had filed detailed submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeal). The Ld. CIT(Appeal) after considering the assessment order, submissions of the A.Y.2011-12 assessee, upheld the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

160 in his paper book. We take into account all these facts as well as various judicial precedents quoted 19 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. hereinabove to hold that the learned PCIT has erred in treating the assessee’s reinvestment of capital gains in purchase of these two flats totalling to Rs.5

SURENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

gains on account of Wakad land and Ravet land and on account of interest expenditure. Further, in the case of Nitin B. Agarwal, the Assessing Officer did 9. not make any addition on account of expenditure/investments. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in SB Account in bank account which is the second reason for CASS

NITIN BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

gains on account of Wakad land and Ravet land and on account of interest expenditure. Further, in the case of Nitin B. Agarwal, the Assessing Officer did 9. not make any addition on account of expenditure/investments. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in SB Account in bank account which is the second reason for CASS

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

160 TAXMAN 48 (SC) delivered by the Apex Court, that the investment made by the banking concern and income arising out from such investments is attributable to under the head "Profit and gain of business and Profession". 5.2.7. It is submitted that the issue has been decided in the assessee’s favour by the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Pune

PRAKASH KRISHNA GHULE,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, SATARA, SATARA

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14 Prakash Krishan Ghule 165/9, Opp. Renukamata Mandir, Sahau Nagar, Godoli, Satara-415001. .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant Pan: Ahspg1542N

capital gain arising from transfer of aforestated property in view of section 2(47)(v) of the Act. In response to such notice the assessee filed his return declaring total income ₹1,99,160