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

section 2(290) denotes two separate levies and hence MMR does not automatically include higher rate of surcharge. 5. In not appreciating that the total income of the appellant of Rs.18,86,13,290/- includes income of Rs.18,52,68,427/-on which maximum surcharge is 15 per cent (viz. short-term capital gains

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

section 548 of the Act. it becomes evident that exemption uls.548(1) is subject to the assessee depositing the amount of unutilized capital gain in a designated bank account within the time provided uls.139 of the Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the appellant was a non-filer for the impugned

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

290 (Mumbai-Trib.)\n(iii) Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-1 Vs. Eltek SGS (P.) Ltd.\n[2023] 153 taxmann.com 263 (Delhi)\n)iv) S&P Capital IQ (India) (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of\nIncome-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 12 (Hyderabad - Trib.)\n7.\nAs regards the other grounds raised by the assessee relating to non-\ngranting of allowance

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, no sale of agricultural land is valid in favors of person who is not an agriculturist. He further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of SmtSarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others 204ITR 631(SC) has also held that the agricultural land sold for non-agricultural purpose

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

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

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

section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, no sale of agricultural land is valid in favors of person who is not an agriculturist. He further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of SmtSarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others 204ITR 631(SC) has also held that the agricultural land sold for non-agricultural purpose

PRASAD DATTATRYA THAKAR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

section 54 of the IT Act, 1961, and is eligible for the deduction. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing.” 2 ITA No.248/PUN/2024, AY 2014-15 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee

RAMA DAMU BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD-1, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rama Damu Bhagat, V The Income Tax Officer, Room No.4, Yashoganga S Ward-1, Panvel. Chg, Tilak Road, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Bicpb8875P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Ajinkya Vaishampayan(Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.09.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

section 207(2) and did not appreciate the facts that: - a) The disputed income does not fall under the head Income from Profits and Gains of Business or Profession', and b) The Assesee was a senior citizen, above 60 years of age during the previous year, and c) The disputed income was not chargeable

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

290 (Bombay) 161\n(Appellant has submitted copies of the above decisions during the\ncourse of hearing).\nIn these cases, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after considering views of\nvarious other High Courts, has laid down that, exemption u/s_11\nought to be denied only to the extent of violative portion. Similarly,\nAppellant has referred to section 13(1) and 115BBI

MAGARAJ MISHRIMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital 3 gains. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS and accordingly notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee through ITBA portal. Since the assessee did not responded, a final show cause notice was issued and due to non- compliance from the side of the assessee, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass ex-parte

BRIG. (RETD.) JITENDRA KUMAR NARANG,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD 11(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gain on sale of mutual funds were made. Subsequently, on 11.09.2017 the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 154 by making addition on account of investment in purchase of mutual fund of Rs.5,30,000/- to the income of the assessee thereby revising the income to Rs.10,94,290/- which was originally assessed at Rs.5,64,290/-. We further find

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

290 (Bombay)\n(Appellant has submitted copies of the above decisions during the course of the hearing).\nIn these cases, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after considering views of various other High Courts, has laid down that, exemption u/s 11 ought to be denied only to the extent of violative portion. Similarly, Appellant has referred to section

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

gain and (iv) the society has ceased ITAT-Pune Page 19 of 66 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre to carry on the activities of the in accordance with the charitable principles. The registration was proposed to be withdrawn with effect from AY 2004-05. The said cancellation proceedings initiated way back in 2007-08 was slumbered until 2017. Following

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

290 (Bombay)\n(Appellant has submitted copies of the above decisions during the course of\nthe hearing).\nIn these cases, Hon'ble Bombay High Court, after considering views of\nvarious other High Courts, has laid down that, exemption u/s 11 ought to\nbe denied only to the extent of violative portion. Similarly, Appellant has\nreferred to section

ARUN TULSIDAS KHARAT,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Arun Tulshidas Kharat, The Deputy Shri Khandelwal Jain & V Commissioner Of Associates, Level 3, Riverside S Income Tax, Circle-7, Business Bay, Near Rto Pune. (Sangam Bridge), Wellesley Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Afhpk6814Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri A D Kulkarni, Irs – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2023

Capital Gain(LTCG). Assessee had claimed deduction of Rs.2,67,85,735/- as Index Cost of Acquisition and Rs.37,18,767/- as Index Cost of Improvement. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer(AO) asked the assessee evidence for Cost of Improvement. Assessee filed bills, vouchers 37 in numbers. The AO observed that bill for Rs.4,47,339/- pertaining

SUSHILA JALINDHAR PATOLE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHPAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sushila Jalindhar Patole, V The Income Tax Officer, 84/1, E Ward Patole Mala, New S Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Palace Road, Karvir, Kolhapur – 416003. Maharashtra. Pan: Eogpp8290P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2025. Though Ld.Cit(A) Has Mentioned A.Y.2010-11 In The Heading, But In The Body Of The Order A.Y.2011-12 Is Mentioned Which Is Correct Assessment Year.

Section 55A is amended. In the present case, the appellant has sold the lands on 03.06.2010 and on 10.06.2010 much before the amendment and hence the ratio of the above decisions squarely applies to the case of the appellant. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, I hold that the AO's reference to the DVO for determination