INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. SMITA ASHOK SONAWANE, NASHIK

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

gain arises. Assessee also submitted that at the time of sale the land was agricultural land and till date it is an agricultural land, assessee submitted that even the purchasers have not converted the land into non-agricultural. Assessing Officer(AO) held that the impugned land was a capital C.O.No.10/PUN/2024 [A] & ITA No.1119/PUN/2023 [R] Smita Ashok Sonawane asset

RAVINDRA JAISINGRAO CHAVAN,AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, , AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 263 of the I.T. Act. The case is fixed for hearing on 17.03.2025 at 3.00 PM in Room No.116, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Nagpur 400 001. In this regard, you may appear either in person or through an Authorized Representative. If you do not wish to avail the opportunity of being heard in person, you may send your written

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

193 ITR 321(SC) observed as under : Quote, “13. We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income-tax proceedings. Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

gains of business or profession\"\n2. 20. The following conditions should concur in order that a particular item of expenditure may be deductible under this section:\n• The expenditure should have been incurred in the accounting year\n• It should not be in the nature of personal nature\n• It should have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively

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

193 (Orissa). (xii) CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited, 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta). (xiii) PCIT vs. M/s. Salasar Stock Broking Ltd., (8) TMI 1131 (Calcutta). (xiv) PCIT vs. Smt. Daksha Jain, (8) TMI 474 (Rajasthan). (xv) Dr. A. V. Sreekumar vs. CIT, 404 ITR 642 (Kerala). While expressing the disagreement with contrary view taken by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

capital gains under general law, normally, the ownership of title of the immovable property would pass on to the purchaser on the registration of the sale deed from date of execution of sale deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC). But, this is not an absolute

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

capital gains under general law, normally, the ownership of title of the immovable property would pass on to the purchaser on the registration of the sale deed from date of execution of sale deed as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alapati Venkataramiah vs. CIT, 57 ITR 185 (SC). But, this is not an absolute