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

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

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital gain and not as business income. 2. In disallowance the claim of Rs.44,95,264/- under section 80IA. This

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, 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

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Capital gains of Rs.50,05,237/-. The income was assessed at Rs.99,48,880/- and proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) of the I T Act for concealment of income were initiated. The factual position arising is that the assessee had purchased land at Bhukum on 05/04/2006. The said transaction of purchase was not recorded in the Books of Accounts. Subsequently

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, no sale of agricultural land is valid in favors of person who is not an agriculturist. He further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of SmtSarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others 204ITR 631(SC) has also held that the agricultural land sold for non-agricultural purpose

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. SMITA ASHOK SONAWANE, NASHIK

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, no sale of agricultural land is valid in favors of person who is not an agriculturist. He further stated that the Hon'ble Supreme court of India in the case of SmtSarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim & Others 204ITR 631(SC) has also held that the agricultural land sold for non-agricultural purpose

SAMEER SATISH SATPUTE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (IT) WARD 4, PUNE , B.O. BHAWAN, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2933/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sameer Satish Satpute, Ito, (It) Ward 4, Pune 39, Rakshak Society, Aundh, Pune-411027 Vs. Pan : Asops4608L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date Of 10-04-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non- Resident Individual. During Fy 2021-22 Relevant To Ay 2022-23 Under Consideration, The Taxable Income Of The Assessee In India Comprised Of : (I) Rental Income From House Property In Pune; (Ii) Capital Gains From Stocks & Mutual Funds; (Iii) Dividend Income; (Iv) Fixed Deposits & (V) Nro Account Interest & Pass Through Income From Two Funds. For Ay 2022- 23, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On 30.07.2022 Claiming Refund Of Rs.3,62,090/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc, Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Order Dated 06.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cpc Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,30,540/- & Raised A Tax Demand Of Rs.35,68,200/-. On Going Through The Intimation, The Assessee Noticed That Though Gross Total Income Was Accepted, Income Adopted As Chargeable At Special Rate Was Incorrect. As Per The Order Of 2

264,91,594 has been doubly taxed, which ought to be corrected. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC after considering the submissions of the assessee which are reproduced in para 8 of his impugned order dismissed the above ground raised by the assessee by observing as under: “9. FINDINGS:- During these appellate proceedings, the statement of facts, the grounds of appeal

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

MAHARASHTRA STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

264 of the Act. 3.1 The ld. AR further contended that the provisions of section 71 merely states that where the assessee in the computation of income under any head of income other than capital gain

BENCHMARRK REALTY LLP,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1396/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Benchmarrk Realty Llp, The Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Sr.No.17/19, Near Balaji V Temple, Kate Wasti, Punawale, S Pune – 411033. Pan: Aanfb 7064 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 09/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 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)-6, Pune Dated 25.07.2019 Emanating From Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 22.03.2018 Under Section 271B Of The Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2015- 16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

gains from business,profession or vocation.” Unquote. 5.5 ITAT Mumbai in the case of Anahaita Nalin ShahITA No.7972/Mum/2010,has held as under : Quote “Undisputed facts of the case are that the assessee had entered in to speculative business of the shares, that the transactions entered in to by her were more than the prescribed 7 Benchmarrk Realty LLP [A] monetary

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

capital gain/ profits earned by each of the person referred above have been disclosed in their regular income-tax returns for the year during which the transactions took place and duly offered to tax. However, since the final sale deed was not registered by any of the buyers, finally it was the assessee who was asked to complete the registration

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of employees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive and loose document found at the residential premises of employee has also been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement given