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

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) held that the conversion of stock-in-trade into investment cannot be considered as transfer. The Assessing Officer observed that there are no specific provisions u/s.45 dealing with conversion of stock-in-trade into capital assets. The Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had purchased the shares

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

G M KENJALE CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 G M Kenjale Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), 22, Parvati, Pune – 411 009 Pune Pan : Aaacg6186E

2 G M Kenjale Constructions Pvt. Ltd., 3. Briefly, stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business as Builder and Developer. The assessee recorded sale transactions of certain flats and computed income for the year accordingly with such agreed values. The AO invoked the provisions of section 43CA of the Act, introduced

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

gains arises on sale of land cannot be taxed under the head ‘business income’. 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that whether a particular land is agricultural or not is essential a question of fact which should be decided with reference

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

SURESH JUGRAJ MUTHA,,DHULE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.05/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

290/-. The case was taken up for limited scrutiny for the purpose of scrutinising the “cash deposits in savings bank account as per AIR information”. After due scrutiny, the AO did not make any addition on this account. However, in the assessment proceedings, AO noticed that the assessee claimed the interest of Rs.1,89,991/- on loan availed from Jalgaon

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

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

capital gains or others. Therefore, consequential deductions u/s.70, 71 and 72 of the Act are not available and relied on the following decisions in this regard (1) Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT 247 ITR 290 (Guj.), (2) Liberty Plywoods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 29 taxmann.com 268 (ITAT Chd.), (3) ITO Vs. Dulari Digital Photo Services