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

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

178/-. After debiting expenses the balance arrived profit at Rs.2,74,48,078/- is claimed as exempt. The assessee firm has relied on section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act and CBDT Circular N. 36/2016 dated 25-10-2016. 6.6 During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed the following points: a. The Firm is trading in business of sale and purchase

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

capitalization of the part of the\ninterest expenditure in WIP. He also relied on the following decisions:\ni)\nBajaj Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT (2023) 152 taxmann.com 216\nii)\nDCIT vs. Sanathnagar Enterprise Ltd. (2022) 139 taxmann.com 557\n(Mumbai – Trib.)\niii)\n`DCIT vs. Lodha Developers Ltd. (2022) 143 taxmann.com 442 (Mumbai –\nTrib.)\n35. We have heard the rival arguments

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

section 96 of the RFCTLARR read with CBDT Circular\nno. 36 of 2016 dated 25th October, 2016.\n2. Prayer:\nIn view of the above submission, it is prayed that the appeal filed by\nthe Ld. AO be dismissed and proper relief be granted to the\nRespondent.”\nHe also placed reliance on the following decisions apart\nfrom the decisions referred

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

178 (Mumbai), Hasmukhbhai M. Patel Vs. ACIT 46 SOT 419 (Ahd.), and on the judgment of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Quark Media House\n5\nITA No.1016/PUN/2024\nRajendra Rasiklal Shah\n(India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 391 ITR 154 (P&H). While concluding, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred

SANKET KAILAS PAWAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Plot No.20, Sattyam Nagar, Aurangabad. Cidco No.7, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.232/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Rl-191, Krushnakunj Aurangabad. Banglow, G Block, Sambhaji Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 & 07.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Noida [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.232/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

gain made on such acquisition was exempt from income tax under section 10(37) of the IT Act. 4. The Ld AddI/JCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was a farmer not engaged in any business activity during the AY 2019-20 and the asset acquired was agricultural land and the Income Tax Return was prepared

SANKET KAILAS PAWAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Plot No.20, Sattyam Nagar, Aurangabad. Cidco No.7, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.232/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Rl-191, Krushnakunj Aurangabad. Banglow, G Block, Sambhaji Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 & 07.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Noida [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.232/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

gain made on such acquisition was exempt from income tax under section 10(37) of the IT Act. 4. The Ld AddI/JCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was a farmer not engaged in any business activity during the AY 2019-20 and the asset acquired was agricultural land and the Income Tax Return was prepared