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

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains'. The question, therefore, is: Whether the agricultural land of the assessee sold in public auction can be said to be situate in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality. The case of the Revenue is that it is, because the Guruvayur township is a municipality within the meaning of that word in the section

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains'. The question, therefore, is: Whether the agricultural land of the assessee sold in public auction can be said to be situate in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality. The case of the Revenue is that it is, because the Guruvayur township is a municipality within the meaning of that word in the section

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains'. The question, therefore, is: Whether the agricultural land of the assessee sold in public auction can be said to be situate in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality. The case of the Revenue is that it is, because the Guruvayur township is a municipality within the meaning of that word in the section

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

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

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

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

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

192 of the Act i.e. salary receipts from Classic Publicity Pvt. Ltd. to the tune of ₹ 5 lakhs and then there is tax deducted at source of Axis Bank on account of interest on several deposits under section 194A of the Act and then there are various deductions under section 194(3) of the Act and Form No.26AS is placed

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

gains of business or profession". In the case of Gopal Kasat, as per prevailing circumstance, the said compensation was treated as "Business income" In the case of appellant, it is not disputed that the said compensation received under LAQ is a Capital receipt. As per court order appellant has received the statutory interest u/s.23 (1A) & 23(2) r.w.s

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

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

192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under the Act, then, such person shall be deemed to be in default in respect of such tax. In addition, sub-section (1A) to section 201 of the Act provides

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

192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under the Act, then, such person shall be deemed to be in default in respect of such tax. In addition, sub-section (1A) to section 201 of the Act provides

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

192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under the Act, then, such person shall be deemed to be in default in respect of such tax. In addition, sub-section (1A) to section 201 of the Act provides

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

192 of the Act being an employer, does not deduct or does not pay after deducting or fails to pay the whole or part of tax as required by or under the Act, then, such person shall be deemed to be in default in respect of such tax. In addition, sub-section (1A) to section 201 of the Act provides