SMT . SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

capital gain shown by the assessee. That would have prevented him from issuing another notice u/s.148 on the same subject matter. Since the first notice dated 30-03-2015 did not elaborately record reasons to believe about the escapement of income, the action of the AO in dropping such proceedings without going into the merits and initiating fresh proceedings, cannot

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

SHIVAJI RAJARAM BUCHADE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

193/- and shown returned capital gains of Rs.95,46,913/-. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disputed the FMV as on 01.04.1981 adopted by the assessee after rejecting the valuation report of the Approved Valuer furnished by the assessee and adopted at Rs.1/- per Sq.mtr and also denied the claim for exemption

ANIL RAJARAM BUCHADE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

193/- and shown returned capital gains of Rs.95,46,913/-. 5. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer disputed the FMV as on 01.04.1981 adopted by the assessee after rejecting the valuation report of the Approved Valuer furnished by the assessee and adopted at Rs.1/- per Sq.mtr and also denied the claim for exemption

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

VINOD KISHAN BANEY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

193/-. We note that the AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains shown by the assessee of Rs.3,33,34,715/- on account 3 ITA Nos.1872 & 1873/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 of sale of agricultural land situated at Village Male in Pune District. In response

HARISH KISHAN BANEY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

193/-. We note that the AO asked the assessee to justify the claim of exemption u/s. 10(37) of the Act in respect of long term capital gains shown by the assessee of Rs.3,33,34,715/- on account 3 ITA Nos.1872 & 1873/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2012-13 of sale of agricultural land situated at Village Male in Pune District. In response

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

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

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-8 vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANCE LTD. PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. BAJAJ FINANACE LTD,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section

BAJAJ FINANCE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

Gains of Business or Profession". 7. Thus, from perusal of Section 37 (1) of the Act, it is evident that the aforesaid provision permits deduction for the expenditure laid out or expended and does not contain a requirement that there has to be a pay-out. If an expenditure has been incurred, provision of Section