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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

section 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred is a long-term capital asset and hence there is a long term capital gain; iii) the asset has been transferred by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family; iv) the assessee has purchased one residential house in India within one year before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI AVINASH KANTILAL JAIN,, JALGAON

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

192/- as on 01.04.2007. Out of which, shares costing to 5 Rs.60,12,515/- were sold for Rs.1,06,78,267/- before 30.11.2007 on which there is long term capital gains of Rs.46,65,552/- which clearly indicates that the assessee is eligible for exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. This fact is accepted

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

capital asset. It is out of transfer of stock in trade. Here the assessee firm has come in to existence with the motive of trading of plots This is the business of the assessee. The profit earned is also taxed as business income. Hence, exemption claimed on profit arisen on account transfer of stock in trade is not acceptable

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

Section 43CA. Thus it is held that the assessee has wrongly offered the income as capital gain. This is nothing but a device to evade tax by offering income under a head where tax liability is lower. Thus capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

Section 43CA. Thus it is held that the assessee has wrongly offered the income as capital gain. This is nothing but a device to evade tax by offering income under a head where tax liability is lower. Thus capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain on sale of agricultural land situated at village Mukalwadi Pirangut, Taluka Mulshi, Pune (hereinafter called as said agricultural land) and thereby, confirming assessed total income of appellant to the tune of Rs.1,63,48,212/- as against the returned income of Rs.20,45,192/- 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in holding that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

gains arises on sale of land cannot be taxed under the head ‘business income’. 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that whether a particular land is agricultural or not is essential a question of fact which should be decided with reference

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

gain account before 31.07.2010 i.e.Due Date for filing\nReturn of Income. Thus, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer\nhas accepted that Assessee has purchased a new asset within the\ntime specified under section 54F of the Act.\n8.1 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Narayan\nRavi Prakash vs ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 192 (Karnataka) held

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

capital gain, professional or business income out of money lending, source of the money etc). Unless such facts are mentioned with some specificity, it cannot be said that the assessee has fulfilled the requirement that she, in her statement (under Section 132 (4)) "substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived". Such being the case, this court

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee), laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head-Profits and gains of business or profession. (Addition of ₹87,64,74,079)” CO No.30/PUN/2025 Taparia Tools Limited 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT