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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the Assessing Officer. (2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under section 54 and not 54E of the Act. (3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to disallow the claim on the ground that as required under section 54E of the Act, the assessee did not invest

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

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the\nAssessing Officer.\n(2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee

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

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the\nAssessing Officer.\n(2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee

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

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

capital gain under section 54 was examined by the\nAssessing Officer.\n(2) Undisputedly, however, the claim of the assessee was under\nsection 54 and not 54E of the Act.\n(3) The Assessing Officer in the reasons recorded desired to\ndisallow the claim on the ground that as required under section\n54E of the Act, the assessee

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

239/-. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) and filed all the relevant details. Ld. CIT(A) after considering the documents and details has partly allowed the assessee’s appeal observing as follows : “6.9 The section is categorical that where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land

BHARAT KANTILAL CHANGEDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain and also made addition of Rs.75,84,125/- being the difference between total fixed deposits declared by the assessee at Rs.25,68,457/- and information obtained from the bank u/s 133(6) of the Act at Rs.1,01,52,582/-. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged

VIKAS RATANLAL JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

section are not applicable to such purchase. Reliance is placed on the various judicial precedents wherein it has been held that the provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable to stock in trade but is applicable only to capital assets:  Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (HUF) ITAT Jaipur - ITA No. 71/Jp/2020; and  Satendra Kaushik

PARAG MILK FOODS LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., The Assistant Awasari Phata,Village Manchar, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tal - Ambegaon, Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Dist-Pune – 411503. Pan: Aabcp 0425 G Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune-11 Dated 04.02.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Making An Addition Of Rs.1,15,71,588/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Conditions Which Are Necessary To Claim Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act & Failed To Furnish Any Concrete Evidence To Prove That The Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A]

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGBAD vs. SHRI PANKAJ RATILAL MUGDIYA, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

gain appreciation rather than keeping the same idle. The assessee in the instant case has been earning the unaccounted income from assessment year 2015-16 and as and when the unaccounted income is earned, the same is invested in gold bars. Therefore, bringing the entire amount to tax in assessment year 2021-22 is not justified. Relying on various decisions

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

239 ITR 435 (Mad.) which held the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(OSD), CRICLE -1, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

239 ITR 435 (Mad.) which held the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible

RBL BANK,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

239 ITR 435 (Mad.) which held the interest paid u/s. 201(1A) of the Act by the assessee does not assume the character of business expenditure and also cannot be regarded as compensatory payment. The ld. AR did not dispute the same. Therefore, we hold the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS to Central Government account is not eligible