HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Vs. PAN : AABTH8220Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kiran Sanmane Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 29-04-2025 Date of 29-05-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : Two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate order(s) both dated

SMT BEENA SHAMMI CHAUDHARI,PUNE vs. ITO., WARD 6(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Beena Shammi Chaudhari Vs. Ito, Ward B/3-302, Silver Oak, Florien Estates, 6(4), Pune Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Adypc5109R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri V.L. Jain Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 16-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17-02-2022

capital gains tax notwithstanding the fact that the property was not registered in the name of the developer. Jettisoning the Departmental line of reasoning, the Hon‟ble Apex Court held that 6 after the amendment of section 17(1A

SATISH ZUMBERLAL FIRODIA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.669/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain tax. 12. Such position of law underwent change by the Registration and other related Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001, the object of which was to do away with the part performance of the contract as amounting to transfer unless the sale deed is actually registered. To give effect to this intention, firstly, sub-section (1A

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

gain would arise in respect of only those capital assets in the acquisition of which an element of cost is etc actually present or capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those capital asset in the acquisition of which the element of cost is altogether inconceivable. The appellant has relied upon several case laws. The appellant raised this

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

gain would arise in respect of only those capital assets in the acquisition of which an element of cost is etc actually present or capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those capital asset in the acquisition of which the element of cost is altogether inconceivable. The appellant has relied upon several case laws. The appellant raised this

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

gain would arise in respect of only those capital assets in the acquisition of which an element of cost is etc actually present or capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those capital asset in the acquisition of which the element of cost is altogether inconceivable. The appellant has relied upon several case laws. The appellant raised this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE vs. VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

gain would arise in respect of only those capital assets in the acquisition of which an element of cost is etc actually present or capable of being reckoned and not in respect of those capital asset in the acquisition of which the element of cost is altogether inconceivable. The appellant has relied upon several case laws. The appellant raised this

SHRI GANAPATI DEVASTHAN TRUST,BARAMATI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION CIRCLE), 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 : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

1A) applies to capital gains reinvested in another capital asset According to CBDT Circular No. 883 and various court rulings, including CIT vs. East India Charitable Trust and Akhara Ghamanda Dass vs. Asst. CIT. investments in fixed deposits exceeding six months are considered as acquiring a new capital asset. However, the AO denied the exemption under Section

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

capital gain but all the decisions of various Benches of Tribunal hold otherwise. In case any exclusive right for geographical location and / or period of use are given then the same would amount to ‘royalty’ and not is the question. He further stressed that the AAR was binding only on the entity in the case of which decision was given

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

capital gain but all the decisions of various Benches of Tribunal hold otherwise. In case any exclusive right for geographical location and / or period of use are given then the same would amount to ‘royalty’ and not is the question. He further stressed that the AAR was binding only on the entity in the case of which decision was given

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

capital gain but all the decisions of various Benches of Tribunal hold otherwise. In case any exclusive right for geographical location and / or period of use are given then the same would amount to ‘royalty’ and not is the question. He further stressed that the AAR was binding only on the entity in the case of which decision was given

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

capital gain but all the decisions of various Benches of Tribunal hold otherwise. In case any exclusive right for geographical location and / or period of use are given then the same would amount to ‘royalty’ and not is the question. He further stressed that the AAR was binding only on the entity in the case of which decision was given

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

Capital Gain, as per provision of section 2(14) of the I.T Act. Therefore, assessee has claimed entire compensation as exempt. Particulars Amount of Compensation Value of land as enhanced 80,60,000 As per Court Compensation for trees 5,78,182 Solatium u/s. 23(2).. 25,91,454 Component… u/s. 23(1A

D.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2007-08

gain on the transfer of the capital asset will be subjected to taxation in the A.Y. 2001-02 subject to its computation in accordance with the relevant provisions but without any application of section 50C as this section itself came to be inserted by the Finance Act, 2002 w.e.f. 01-04-2003. 10. Section 2(47) of the Act defines

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FUTURA BIOPLANTS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

Capital expenditure 1,19,514 2 Revenue Creditors (29,530) 3 Revenue Debtors 10,40,664 4 Revaluation at the year end 3,75,230 (unrealised gain) Total 15,05,878 Submissions on merits : The learned AO has grossly erred in concluding that, the gains arising on account of foreign currency fluctuation were purely business income. The contention

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains on transfer of immovable property on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that the levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2 Dinar Umeshkumar More 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.02.2020 is barred

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-. This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-. This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-. This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded