ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

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

256 (SC) Proviso to section 13 of the I.T. Act and section 21A of the WT Act lays down that exemption will not be denied if part of the income is applied for benefit of a person referred to section 13(3) of the Act, if such use for application is in compliance to mandatory terms of the Trust which

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2(47) which could lead to capital gains M/s. Sunnygold Wineries Private Limited for A.Y.2010-11. It is only in A.Y.2011-12, that the sales tax liability was fully cleared; the sales tax department also lifted its charge on the property on 24.06.2010 ( page 121 of Paper Book), the transfer of the property took place only in A.Y.2011-12 and therefore, the capital

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PUNE vs. DNYANOBA SHIVRAM BHINTADE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

256/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,37,86,406/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2013 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,97,11,530/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated

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

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

NITIN BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 9(1), PUNE

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

gains on account of Wakad land and Ravet land and on account of interest expenditure. Further, in the case of Nitin B. Agarwal, the Assessing Officer did 9. not make any addition on account of expenditure/investments. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in SB Account in bank account which is the second reason for CASS

SURENDRA BHIMSEN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

gains on account of Wakad land and Ravet land and on account of interest expenditure. Further, in the case of Nitin B. Agarwal, the Assessing Officer did 9. not make any addition on account of expenditure/investments. Further, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash deposits in SB Account in bank account which is the second reason for CASS

SURESH JUGRAJ MUTHA,,DHULE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vi Kas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.05/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

capital gains. At the end of the assessment proceedings, the AO disallowed the said interest income and held that the loan was not utilised as per the law. Further, the claim of deduction u/s.54 was also denied holding that the sale of the lands constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade. In the appeal before First Appellate authority

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

gain. He referred to the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of N. N. Desai Charitable Trust v. CIT reported in [(2000) 246 ITR 452 (Guj] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that when the transactions between a charitable trust and its related concerns are excessive and lack commercial prudence, the trust forfeits exemption

PARAS JAVERILAL JAIN,,DHULE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

2. On the facts and in the circumstances prevailing in the case and as per the provision of law, it may please be held that the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition of Rs.21,849/- even-though, provision of section 14A is not applicable to the facts of the case, as sufficient own funds were available

MUZAFFER MAHMOOD KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

2, Aurangabad held the AO should have verified the issue by examining the flats nearby, and he held the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 6. Having aggrieved, the assessee is now before us challenging the action of Pr. CIT in holding the assessment order passed

BHADANES HITECH TECHNOLOGY COMPUTER PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Bhadanes Hitech Technology Vs. Ito, Ward Computer Pvt. Ltd. 1(1), Nashik Flat No.10, Padmavishwa Plaza, Nashik Pune Road, Tagore Nagar, Nashik – 422006 Pan : Aadcb9102E Appellant Respondent

capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid down or expanded wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed in computing the income chargeable under the head "Profits and gains of business or profession". Thus any expenditure barring those excluded under sub section (1) of Section 37 of the Act laid out or expanded

ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR vs. MS. KSHIRSAGAR FABRICS, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

capital gain as casual income could not be said to be based on change of opinion. Accordingly, the re-assessment proceedings were held to be valid. Relying on the following decisions, he submitted that the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer are in accordance with law: 1. CIT vs. P.V.S. Beedies