SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

163 (Karnataka) and by referring to relevant paragraphs, he argued that sub-section (4) of section 54F of the Act is not attracted if the assessee invests the sale consideration derived from the transfer either in purchasing the property or constructing the residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F(1) of the Act. He submits that the assessee

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"

capital gains. 2.3 In reply, the learned CIT. DR made the following pointed by Ld. DR- a. The valuation reports (146 to 149) submitted by the assessee in support of the valuation of share price of Shivalik are totally sketchy and they are not reliable. b. The balance sheet of Shivalik on page 163 has not shown the additional purchase

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

163 taxmann.com 40 (Mumbai-Trib)\n(ii) Dow Chemical International (P.) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of\nIncome Tax [2024] 169 taxmann.com 290 (Mumbai-Trib.)\n(iii) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd.\n[2023] 153 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi)\n)iv) S&P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of\nIncome

DNYANOBA SHAJIRAO JADHAV,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

Capital Gain, as per provision of section 2(14) of the I.T Act. Therefore, assessee has claimed entire compensation as exempt. Particulars Amount of Compensation Value of land as enhanced 80,60,000 As per Court Compensation for trees 5,78,182 Solatium u/s. 23(2).. 25,91,454 Component… u/s. 23(1A) 35,41,655 Total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

capital gain was considered as income from other sources i.e. brokerage/commission and thus the claim of deduction u/s 54F was disallowed. 3. The appellant filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) against the order of AO. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the AO. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the appellant filed

BENCHMARRK REALTY LLP,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1396/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Benchmarrk Realty Llp, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Sr.No.17/19, Near Balaji V Temple, Kate Wasti, Punawale, S Pune – 411033. Pan: Aanfb 7064 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 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(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 25.07.2019 Emanating From Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 22.03.2018 Under Section 271B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015- 16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 44AB will be applicable. In this context, we refer to following decisions of Hon’ble High Courts. 5.4 The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Bajrang Oil Mills Vs.ITO [2007] 163 TAXMAN 154 (RAJ.): Quote, “ 23.Having given our careful consideration to the rival submissions and looking to the object with which the provisions have been enacted

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

gain. 11.3 Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 11.4 On hearing both the sides and on perusing the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, we find the issue of allowing the demat charges, stands decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

gain. 11.3 Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 11.4 On hearing both the sides and on perusing the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, we find the issue of allowing the demat charges, stands decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

gain. 11.3 Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 11.4 On hearing both the sides and on perusing the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, we find the issue of allowing the demat charges, stands decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

gain. 11.3 Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the AO/CIT(A). 11.4 On hearing both the sides and on perusing the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y. 2009-10, we find the issue of allowing the demat charges, stands decided in favour of the assessee. Therefore, following

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI ABHIJIT SURESH JADHAV,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

gains’ and claims the carry forward of such loss u/s.72,73,74 or 74A then he may furnish within the time allowed u/s.139(1) a return of loss and the provisions of the Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1) of section 139. Section 139 states that if a carry forward of loss

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

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

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

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

ASHUTOSH DUBEY,KANJURMARG vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ashutosh Dubey, V Income Tax Officer, Tower 8, Flat No.3201, Runwal S Circle-8, Pune. Forest, Lbs Road, Kanjurmarg West, Maharashtra – 400078 Pan: Ajppd0173M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Amar Pandey (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

163 taxmann.com 146(Delhi) WP(C) No.s1646 & 3312 of 2022 vide order dated 31.05.2024. 7. Ld.DR submitted that Assessee had not filed return of income voluntarily under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, there is under reporting of income, hence, AO was right in levying penalty under section 270A of the Act. 8. In this case, admittedly Assessee

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks