JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 10(38) of the Act. It has been asserted that monies in question have been received through the banking channels. It has been further argued that there was no evidence that the long term capital gain declared by the appellant was sham/bogus. It was stated that the AO applied the scheme of penny stock companies in the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

1. the assessee should be an individual or a Hindu undivided family, 2. the capital gain arises from the transfer of a long-term capital asset (original asset) being buildings or lands-appurtenant thereto, and being a residential house, the income of which is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" 3. and the assessee has within a period

SUBHADRA TANAJI CHAVAN,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1389/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31, Suparna Niwas S Ward-2, Satara. Pawar Colony, Shahupuri, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bgspc7420D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22Dated 30.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(1)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered in isolation. By making an adjustment of the nature contemplated under sub-section (1) to section 50C, that too, by CPC, the Department takes away a valuable statutory right given to the assessee to object to the value determined

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

capital gains and other sources. Since the additional income was offered for taxation only after search action in the case of assessee, penalty proceedings were initiated for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer thereafter, vide order passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied penalty on account of concealment of income or furnishing

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

SHRI TUSHAR JAGMOHAN KAMTHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 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(Appeals)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “the Act”). The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the learned A.O. erred in not treating the land as agriculture land by disregarding appellant’s contention and thereby further erred in denying exemption claimed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FUTURA BIOPLANTS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

section 2(1A) r.w.s. 10(1) of the Act irrespective of the fact whether basic operations have been carried out on land. Such income is deemed as an exempt agricultural income, thus qualifying for exemption u/s.10(1) of the Act. Accordingly, grounds raised by the Revenue stand dismissed. Therefore, order of the CIT(A) does not call for any interference

RAMDULAR JAMNAPRASAD SAHU,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu, The Deputy 215, Hadapsar, Shimpi Ali V Commissioner Of Income Circle-14, Pune – 411028. S Tax, Circle-14, Pune. Maharashtra. Pan: Adips 7528 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte - Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023 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)[Nfac] Dated 08.06.2023Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16; Emanating From Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.10.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16; emanating from order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.10.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower Authorities have erred

NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 24.03.2025 for the A.Y.2022-23 emanating from the Assessment Order under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1318/PUN/2025 [A] “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Assessee is eligible for deduction

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

1. CIT Vs. J. Dalmia 149 ITR 215 (Delhi 2. CIT Vs. Abbashboy A. Dehgamwalla 195 ITR 28 (Bom.) 3. Baroda Cement and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. CIT 158 ITR 636 (Guj.) 4. Dhruv N. Shah 88 ITD 118 (Mumb Trib.) 12. We heard both the sides, perused the orders of the Revenue authorities on the issue of taxability of capital