DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2). The Hon'ble DRP did not adjudicate on this ground on the basis that it is not a variation proposed in the draft order. Further, the Appellant has claimed deduction under section 80-IAB of the Act on Income from Other Sources and Capital Gains in the subsequent assessment years.” Unquote.(emphasis supplied) 3. The Ld.AR admitted that

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

gains chargeable to tax in India arose in the hands of Hutchison International, Hong Kong. To neutralize the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International, the legislature stepped in and carried out certain statutory amendments, including altering the definition of ‗capital asset‘ u/s 2(14), the definition of ‗transfer‘ u/s 2(47) and insertion

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

gains chargeable to tax in India arose in the hands of Hutchison International, Hong Kong. To neutralize the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vodafone International, the legislature stepped in and carried out certain statutory amendments, including altering the definition of ‗capital asset‘ u/s 2(14), the definition of ‗transfer‘ u/s 2(47) and insertion

BALASAHEB POPATRAO PHADOL, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Nashik. Vaishnav Niwas, Phadol Mala, At Post Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Apipp8834L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual) Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “1. The Development Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2012-13 & Supplementary Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2013-14. No Sale Of Flats In The Year Of Assessment Order. Only Development Agreement Was Not Transfer U/S 2(47). Commencement Certificate Was Received In The Assessment Year 2013-2014.”

capital gains income had arisen to assessee on transfer of development rights in its land to a developer, since assessee had merely granted licence to permit construction on land to such developer but not given any possession in land as contemplated under section 53A of T.P. Act, 1882, there was no transfer as per section 2(47

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

47) of Income-lax Act, 1961 for the purpose of computing tax liability arising on account of sale /purchase of immovable properties under Income-tax Act. But the issue here before us is different. As discussed earlier, the holding period is to be delermined in terms of section 2(424) of the Act which has been reproduced and discussed above

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

2. We enclose herewith ledger account of agriculture income for your record and perusal. 3. The details of capital gain on sale of plots is already filed along with computation of income for the year under assessment in our earlier submission. We enclose herewith Purchase and sale deeds of the said plots sold for your record and perusal

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 2(47) of the Act. Accordingly attracts Long Term Capital Gains on transfer of land during the year under

LALCHAND NARAYAN BHAKT,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 2, JALNA

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain to the assessee and the entire amount received against the notarized agreement for sale mentioned above is only an advance. 4. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. He referred to the provisions of section 2(47

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

capital gains are deemed to have been earned by the assessee on transfer of land as per the provisions of Section 2(47

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

2,08,000\nshares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital\nGains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The\ndates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall\nbe submitted later on.\nQ. 20. Please furnish the copies of Broker Notes in respect of Purchase and\nSale

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 :

capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast pointed out to the Tribunal