DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2,15,37,986/- is setoff against capital loss of Rs. 4,58,757,066/- pertaining to sale of share of Paioli Meccanica S.P.A, Italy(Paioli). The assessee company had purchased share of aforesaid company during the year 2006-07 and such shares are sold in the month of Nov. 2009. However, on going through the Article 14 of Comprehensive

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2,15,37,986/- is setoff against capital loss of Rs. 4,58,757,066/- pertaining to sale of share of Paioli Meccanica S.P.A, Italy(Paioli). The assessee company had purchased share of aforesaid company during the year 2006-07 and such shares are sold in the month of Nov. 2009. However, on going through the Article 14 of Comprehensive

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2,15,37,986/- is setoff against capital loss of Rs. 4,58,757,066/- pertaining to sale of share of Paioli Meccanica S.P.A, Italy(Paioli). The assessee company had purchased share of aforesaid company during the year 2006-07 and such shares are sold in the month of Nov. 2009. However, on going through the Article 14 of Comprehensive

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

37) S.C. has clarified that where the words of the Statute are plain\nand clear, there is no room for applying any of the principles of\ninterpretation.\nWith the insertion of sub-section 80P(4) which is in the nature of a proviso, as\nheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court in its latest decision in the case of The\nMavilayi

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming an addition of capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Limited of Rs.85,38,145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain\nclaimed during the year, for which the appellant has taken strong objection in his\nwritten submission. After carefully considering the information/details/ documentary\nevidence furnished by the appellant at the assessment stage, I am convinced that the\nappellant has provided all the required details to substantiate his claim of LTCG\nduring the year under consideration.\n\n8.3 The assessing

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), 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 : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 45(2) is inconsequential. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 23.12.2014 and the following chart disclosing the calculation of correct capital gain on sale of flats: 11 Particulars FY 16-17 AY 17-18 (a) Sale Consideration 3,67,25,561 (b) Total FMV as on date

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

2 to section 37(1) of the Act, they are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is no restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above sections to be exempt, as long as it satisfies necessary conditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing 9 ITA No.1158/PUN/2023 [A] ITA No.1330/PUN/2023 [R] income under the head, “Income from

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE vs. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT. LTD., PUNE

In the result, the cross appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA\nNo

2 to section 37(1) of the Act,\nthey are specifically excluded in clarification issued. There is\nno restriction on an expenditure being claimed under above\nsections to be exempt, as long as it satisfies necessary\nconditions under section 30 to 36 of the Act, for computing\nincome under the head, “Income from Business and\nProfession\".\n\n16. For claiming

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2. The petitioner as an individual, for the assessment year 2008-09 filed his return of income on 3.3.2009 showing total income of Rs.4,43,830/-. During the period relevant to the assessment year, the petitioner had sold a residential property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2. The petitioner as an individual, for the assessment year 2008-09 filed his return of income on 3.3.2009 showing total income of Rs.4,43,830/-. During the period relevant to the assessment year, the petitioner had sold a residential property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

2. The petitioner as an individual, for the assessment year 2008-09 filed his return of income on 3.3.2009 showing total income of Rs.4,43,830/-. During the period relevant to the assessment year, the petitioner had sold a residential property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized

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

37% on the entire amount of tax. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee on this issue observing that the entire income of the assessee, including the long term and short term capital gains and dividend income, is subjected to MMR under section 167B r.w.s. 2

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

37% on the entire amount of tax. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the ground of appeal of the assessee on this issue observing that the entire income of the assessee, including the long term and short term capital gains and dividend income, is subjected to MMR under section 167B r.w.s. 2

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains arising from the transfer (including compulsory acquisition) of such agricultural land is not taxable. Finance (No. 2) Act, 2004 inserted section 10(37

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

ANU AGA FAMILY DISCRETIONARY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains under section 111A of the Act, the applicable surcharge shall be @ 15% and other income of the assessee including dividend income shall be subjected to MMR with surcharge @ 37% as per the provisions of section 167B r.w.s. 2