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

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

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

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

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

ANANTA DATTATRAY JAMBHULKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.135/Pun/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

160/- which included long term capital gain and also examining the details of immovable property sold during the year, made the addition for long term capital gain and assessed the income at Rs.1,03,06,020/- resulting into net addition of Rs.95,16,860/-. The assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but then could not attend the dates

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and subsequent

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

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

160 taxmann.com 404 (Bom), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the Assessing Officer, upon receiving CIB information indicating significant share transactions by assessee, issued a notice under section 148 to reopen assessment, since reasons recorded showed that Assessing Officer only wanted to verify more details regarding share transaction, that could

RUHI KHALID PARWANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(3) PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt. Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 1553/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ruhi Khalid Parwani 9, Meher House, Kahun Rd., Camp, Pune-411001 Pan : Aovpp5464Q . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

capital gain computation etc., were uploaded on the Revenue’s web portal on 17/05/2024, this pivotal submission however inadvertently lost the sight of the Ld. NFAC who proceeded ex-parte on the basis of balance records and dismissed the appeal of the appellant by confirming the addition & countenancing the denial of exemption claimed

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

section 36(1)(iii) of\nthe Act. It was further informed that the said amount of interest paid was in\nrespect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession. It\nwas further submitted that the construction and development having\ncommenced, the business is in operation, therefore, interest is allowable\nu/s.36(1)(iii) of the Act. It was also

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

160 (Bom.) in support of the proposition that a document will be a dumb document, where any of the above four ingredients is missing and AO fails fill-up the gap with the help of other documents or from post search investigation enquiries. And no addition can be made based on such dumb documents. In other words, a dumb document

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gains of business attributable to the activity of carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members by a cooperative society and is liable to be deducted from the gross total income under Section 80P of the Act. 4. Sec. 80P of the Act grants deduction in respect of various categories of income of a cooperative

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

160/-. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, based on the information that the assessee along with 5 other persons have entered into an Agreement to purchase an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.72.00 lakh which\n2\nITA No.1016/PUN/2024\nRajendra Rasiklal Shah\nwas registered under Amnesty Scheme on 06.02.2016, the value of the property

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

gains of the business had not been stated, the returns\ncould not be treated as invalid and non-existent.\ne) writ was issued commanding the respondents not to love any effect\nto the impugned notices under Section 148 of the Act.\nNicholas Applegate South East Asia Fund Ltd. Vs. ADIT (2009)\n117 ITD 0299 (Мит)\n\"Assessee company having filed