INDUBAI DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section that the deduction can be claimed if the investment is made in any other's name. Thus the A.O. has rightly disallowed the deduction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs.8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital gain on sale of land as the said land was urban land not utilized for agricultural purposes for the last five years.‖ 3. Shri Satish Chauhan appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with his brothers had acquired agricultural land comprising in S. No. 247/3, 250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital gain on sale of land as the said land was urban land not utilized for agricultural purposes for the last five years.‖ 3. Shri Satish Chauhan appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with his brothers had acquired agricultural land comprising in S. No. 247/3, 250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital gain on sale of land as the said land was urban land not utilized for agricultural purposes for the last five years.‖ 3. Shri Satish Chauhan appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with his brothers had acquired agricultural land comprising in S. No. 247/3, 250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located at Sindh

SANDHYA SURESH DAHIVELKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

section 142A of Income Tax Act.” 4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen widow lady, filed her Return of Income on 27-06-2017 declaring total income at Rs.15,24,570. In this Return of Income, appellant has shown capital gain on account of sale of Residential House situated at Nigdi, Pune

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

gains and similarly in ground No.6 the assessee prays for allowance of claim of unabsorbed expenses and depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A

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 gain in a designated bank account within the due date for filing the ITR for the impugned AY 2014-15 5.6.5 Viewed from any angle it is clear that the assessee has not complied with the conditions for avalling exemption u/s 54B of the Act. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I'm of the considered opinion

NEETA DATTATRAYA TAKLE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

211/- in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act which was not filed within the period of 30 days from the date of service of notice. During the year under consideration, the assessee had shown income from retail trade, tuition classes, short term capital gain, long term capital gain and income from other sources. During the course of assessment

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

gains of business or profession". In the case of Gopal Kasat, as per prevailing circumstance, the said compensation was treated as "Business income" In the case of appellant, it is not disputed that the said compensation received under LAQ is a Capital receipt. As per court order appellant has received the statutory interest u/s.23 (1A) & 23(2) r.w.s

DNYANESHWAR PANDIT MAHAJAN,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

211 ITR 336 (A.P.) held that if the ground of revision is not mentioned in the show cause notice issued u/s 263, that ground cannot be made the basis 7. Further, he referred to an order in the case of Star India Ltd. Reported in 14 ITR-Trib 106 at Page No. 30 of the paper book and submits that

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain before the ld. first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal and also made enhancement on the basis of the report of DVO, which was received after the completion of assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by such confirmation/enhancement. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue in this appeal

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE , LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. CHANDRABHAGA E. SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain before the ld. first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal and also made enhancement on the basis of the report of DVO, which was received after the completion of assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by such confirmation/enhancement. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue in this appeal

SMT. ASHA NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (2),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain before the ld. first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal and also made enhancement on the basis of the report of DVO, which was received after the completion of assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by such confirmation/enhancement. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue in this appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

211 (Mum) (Trib.) H. Whether since section 54/54F simply mentions that unutilised portion of capital gain on sale of capital

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

211 (Madras-HC). It is the stand of the Assessing Officer that investment made in the name of the assessee alone is eligible for claim of deduction. Improving the case of the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) relied upon the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Prakash vs. ITO, 173 Taxman 311 (Bom.-HC) which is relevant

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.

section 45, held that "taxation or exemption from taxation depends upon the subject of transfer answering or not answering the definition of capital asset at the time of transfer and at no other point of time." In the subsequent decisions reported in CIT v. P.J. Thomas [1995] 211 ITR 897 (Mad) and (CWT v. E. Udayakumar

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

211 d. CIT vs Smt. Nirmal Anand 245 ITR 836 e. Jay Commercial Ltd vs CIT 66 TTJ 731 f. Hycron India vs ACIT 82 TTJ 450 13. Referring to the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Fine Jewellery (India) Ltd. (2015) 372 ITR 303 (Bom) and the decision of Hon’ble Delhi