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 income under section 54E of the Act. For Rs.37,00,000/- invested in State Bank of India term deposit for 40 days up to 366

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 income under section 54E of\nthe Act. For Rs.37,00,000/- invested in State Bank of India term\ndeposit for 40 days up to 366

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 income under section 54E of\nthe Act. For Rs.37,00,000/- invested in State Bank of India term\ndeposit for 40 days up to 366

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 income under section 54E of\nthe Act. For Rs.37,00,000/- invested in State Bank of India term\ndeposit for 40 days up to 366

VINAYA ABHIJIT GAJENDRAGADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

366/- for A.Yrs. 2012-13 and 2014-15. Both these additions have been made by way of calculating the long term capital gain from the very same transaction wherein the assessee along with other 16 co-owners entered into Development Agreement with Om Ved Turnkey Project Developers on 29.05.2007 for the sale of immovable property situated at Village Mouje Charholi

VINAYA ABHIJIT GAJENDRAGADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

366/- for A.Yrs. 2012-13 and 2014-15. Both these additions have been made by way of calculating the long term capital gain from the very same transaction wherein the assessee along with other 16 co-owners entered into Development Agreement with Om Ved Turnkey Project Developers on 29.05.2007 for the sale of immovable property situated at Village Mouje Charholi

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

gains shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing 5 as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts namely:- (i) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer (ii) The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. The assessee

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

Capital Gains, and income from other sources and deposited cash of Rs.21,40,780/- in Sant Sopan Sahakari Bank Limited during the demonetization period. Entire addition has been made by the AO on account of disbelieving the cash in hand recorded in books of accounts u/s 69A. The deeming fiction u/s 69A can be invoked, where in any financial year

RENISHAW METROLOGY SYSTEMS LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Renishaw Metrology Systems The Dy.Commissioner Limited, V Of Income Tax, Circle- S.No.283, Hissa No.2, S.No.284, S 5, Pune. Hissa No.2 & 3A, Raisoni Estate, Taluk – Mulshi, Dist-Pune. Pan: Aabcr6361F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ajit Jain & Shri Siddesh Chaugule – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni – Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 04/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/01/2024

capital risks. 3. Other Transfer Pricing Grounds 3.1 computing the operating margins by treating foreign exchange gain / loss as non-operating in nature in the case of the Appellant as well as the comparable companies; 3.2 not allowing risk adjustment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 10B of the Rules; 3.3 rejecting the use of multiple year data

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

366 (SC)] upheld the order of Hon’ble Bombay High Court [129 Taxmann.com 415 (Bom)] which in turn dismissed the assessee’s Writ filed against aforestated order of rejection passed by the Ld. CCT. In result the observations, findings and reasonings of the Revenue in rejecting to grant registration u/s 10(23C) of the Act to the assessee society

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

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

366/- by holding that ESOP is an allowable expense u/s 37(1) of the Act. 2) On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld.ClT(A) erred in allowing the deduction of Rs.93,46,419/- which was disallowed by AO on account of broken period interest expenses u/s 28 of the Act. 3) On the facts

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

section 251 of the Act. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now, we shall take the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 509/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 9. Ground Nos. A and B raised by the Revenue challenging

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

section 251 of the Act. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now, we shall take the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 509/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 9. Ground Nos. A and B raised by the Revenue challenging

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

section 251 of the Act. Thus, ground No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Now, we shall take the appeal of Revenue in ITA No. 509/PUN/2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. 9. Ground Nos. A and B raised by the Revenue challenging