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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

2 In paragraph 2.4 of the written submission, the revenue cited the SEBI Order dated 28.11.2022, which observed that the prices of PFL were manipulated through fraudulent trades In the present case, the SEBI has not issued any notice to the assessee or broker of the assessee in relation to synchronised trades or matched trades Further, the penalty imposed

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

2 In paragraph 2.4 of the written submission, the revenue cited the SEBI Order dated 28.11.2022, which observed that the prices of PFL were manipulated through fraudulent trades In the present case, the SEBI has not issued any notice to the assessee or broker of the assessee in relation to synchronised trades or matched trades Further, the penalty imposed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital gain on mutual funds etc. While doing so, he held that the decision in the case of Totagar's Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in that case the amount invested in short term deposits and securities was not out of interest bearing deposits collected from members

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

gains of subsequent years without having 8 years of limit. Further, we note that the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify record and determine the correct allowable unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2000-01, 5 ITA No. 915/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2011-12 to allow the same to be carried forward for set off with income

VITA URBAN CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2390/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2 Vita Urban Co-op. Credit Society Ltd. 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs.16,19,220 made by the AO as ‘capital gains

SHREE TULJABHAVANI NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -5 , PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.254/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shree Tuljabhavani Nagari The Principal Commissioner Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Vs Of Income Tax - 5, Pune. 17/04, 103, Shri Tuljibhavani Plaza Mangalnagar, Wakad Road, Thergaon, Pune. Pan: Aadas 9902 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr.Dipak P.Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income-Tax-5, Pune’S, Order Dated 08.01.2019For The Assessment Year 2014-15, Involving Proceedings Under Section 263(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax Has Erred In Passing The Order Which Is Without Jurisdiction & Bad In Law. Same May Please Be Cancelled. 2. Pr.Cit Has Erred In Alleging That Order U/S 143(3) Passed By Assessing Officer Is Erroneous In So Far As It Is Prejudicial To The Interest Of Revenue. Appellant Prays To Cancel The Same.

2)(a)(i), the assessment completed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward - 9(4), Pune, on 15.07.2016, for Assessment Year 2014-15, is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The disallowance made by the Assessing Office of Rs. 7,856/- in respect

PRAKASH SAKHARAM SANGAONKAR,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

2, Kolhapur erred in holding that the transaction of sale of property is liable to tax as business income as well as income from capital gain.” 3. The core issue for adjudication in this appeal relates to the application of the correct “Head of Income” for taxing the gains / profits earned in connection with the transaction of the Joint Development

CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains etc. Assessee claims that he was never a professional cricketer and he was only a sportsman. During the year under consideration, assessee received (1) Rs.75 lakhs from Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) as One-Time Receipt (OTB)/award and claimed the same as exempt in view of CBDT Circular No.447 of 1986 dated

MR. ADIT RATHI,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

2,49,85,220/-, we find that the CIT(A) upheld the assessment findings as under: (i) I have considered the submission of the appellant carefully and given thought. In fact. Section 54B of LT. Act deals about an exemption available to individual and HUF against capital gain

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and subsequent

SATISH DHANESHAN KOLLARA,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

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

220/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.18.02.2014 (in appeal No.495/THN/2013-14) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. The Appellate Authority erred by confirming the addition of cash deposit

SUGAR CANE PRODUCERS VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAH. SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain on mutual funds etc. While doing so, he held that the decision in the case of Totagar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in that case the amount invested in short term deposits and securities was not out of interest bearing deposits collected from members

SUGAR CANE PRODUCERS VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAH. SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain on mutual funds etc. While doing so, he held that the decision in the case of Totagar’s Cooperative Sale Society Ltd. (Supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case since in that case the amount invested in short term deposits and securities was not out of interest bearing deposits collected from members

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Gains of Business or Profession” and therefore, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal understandably observed that no addition could be made since S. 13 does not call for any addition to income but merely denial of exemption for violation of its provisions. 6.10 The next contention of the appellant is that the AO's reliance on the judgment

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Gains of Business or Profession” and therefore, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal understandably observed that no addition could be made since S. 13 does not call for any addition to income but merely denial of exemption for violation of its provisions. 6.10 The next contention of the appellant is that the AO's reliance on the judgment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Gains of Business or Profession” and therefore, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal understandably observed that no addition could be made since S. 13 does not call for any addition to income but merely denial of exemption for violation of its provisions. 6.10 The next contention of the appellant is that the AO's reliance on the judgment

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Gains of Business or Profession” and therefore, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal understandably observed that no addition could be made since S. 13 does not call for any addition to income but merely denial of exemption for violation of its provisions. 6.10 The next contention of the appellant is that the AO's reliance on the judgment

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Gains of Business or Profession” and therefore, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal understandably observed that no addition could be made since S. 13 does not call for any addition to income but merely denial of exemption for violation of its provisions. 6.10 The next contention of the appellant is that the AO's reliance on the judgment

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Gains of Business or Profession” and therefore, the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal understandably observed that no addition could be made since S. 13 does not call for any addition to income but merely denial of exemption for violation of its provisions. 6.10 The next contention of the appellant is that the AO's reliance on the judgment