SMT BEENA SHAMMI CHAUDHARI,PUNE vs. ITO., WARD 6(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Beena Shammi Chaudhari Vs. Ito, Ward B/3-302, Silver Oak, Florien Estates, 6(4), Pune Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Adypc5109R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri V.L. Jain Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 16-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17-02-2022

254(1), on the question of transfer of property actually taking place has attained finality and cannot be re-agitated. No material has been placed to demonstrate the earlier order has been reversed, restored or modified pro tanto by the Hon‟ble High Court. As a corollary, the jurisdiction of the Bench in the current proceedings is limited only

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

254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the assessee on 13/02/2019. Summons

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

254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the assessee on 13/02/2019. Summons

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

254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the assessee on 13/02/2019. Summons

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

254\n24-12-2019\n2,34,00,000\n2017-18\n-20,60,094\n24-12-2019\n78,00,000\n3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the\nassessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the\nassessee on 13/02/2019. Summons

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

254\n24-12-2019\n2,34,00,000\n2017-18\n-20,60,094\n24-12-2019\n78,00,000\n3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the\nassessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the\nassessee on 13/02/2019. Summons

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

254\n24-12-2019\n2,34,00,000\n2017-18\n-20,60,094\n24-12-2019\n78,00,000\n3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the\nassessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a\nsurvey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises of the\nassessee on 13/02/2019. Summons

JAYNA ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

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

254 in all the cases by making addition of the entire amount of sales proceeds shown in the books of assessees for respective AYs and also added the component of commission @ 6% (being the market rate prevailed during the year under consideration) on total sale consideration. Considering this factual position, it is requested that the addition made

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain on adhoc basis. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: Search material in case of Mr. Dilip Kotecha Date of search – search – 9/8/2011 Search Asstt Date Particulars Qty. Rate Amount materia Order l Page Page No. No. 20 29.11.10 Dellip Kotecha 25,000 154.43 38,60,850 20 1.12.10 Dellip Kotecha

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to Revenue either. 34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that though we are not entirely agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal contained in the impugned judgment, we are upholding the conclusion of the Tribunal based on the "block

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to Revenue either. 34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that though we are not entirely agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal contained in the impugned judgment, we are upholding the conclusion of the Tribunal based on the "block

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

capital gains and also books of accounts of the Appellant had reflected the said transaction and therefore it could not be said that any inaccurate particulars of income were furnished in the return of income. It was also contended that the appellant had cooperated to the assessment proceedings and there was no conscious breach of law and further that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE , , ICHALKRANJI vs. GHODAWAT ENERGY PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

capital gain and income from other sources has to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee without allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the act and deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.10,08,60,993/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE , , ICHALKRANJI vs. GHODAWAT ENERGY PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

capital gain and income from other sources has to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee without allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the act and deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.10,08,60,993/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE , , ICHALKRANJI vs. GHODAWAT ENERGY PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

capital gain and income from other sources has to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee without allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the act and deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.10,08,60,993/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BODKE,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Capital Gain of Rs.51,79,319/- after claiming deduction of Rs.38,11,000/- u/s. 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee was co-sharer of land admeasuring 1H 13R comprising in Gut No.239, Village: Gahunje, Taluka- Maval, Dist.- Pune. After sale of said land, the assessee invested part of his share

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

GULAB L. BODKE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 10(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

capital gains.” 3. Shri V.L. Jain appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 is without jurisdiction as the Assessing Officer has not provided reasons for reopening to the assessee till the time of passing assessment order. The assessment order has been passed in violation of the law laid down

SHRI GANAPATI DEVASTHAN TRUST,BARAMATI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION CIRCLE), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

gains reinvested in another capital asset According to CBDT Circular No. 883 and various court rulings, including CIT vs. East India Charitable Trust and Akhara Ghamanda Dass vs. Asst. CIT. investments in fixed deposits exceeding six months are considered as acquiring a new capital asset. However, the AO denied the exemption under Section 11(1A) on procedural grounds