AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

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subsequently retracted and the Pendrive\nand loose document found at the residential premises of employee has\nalso been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing\nTrustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such\nalleged transaction in the statement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

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been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive and loose document found at the residential premises of employee has also been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement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

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

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

capitation fees.\nFurther in the reply dated 20.04.2024, it was submitted that\nthere is no provision for cancellation of registration u/s.12A of the\nAct retrospectively since section 12AB has come into operation\nfrom 01.04.2021. Further vide reply dated 26.03.2024, assessee\nstated that the trust is running a Medical College, Charitable\nHospital and Research Centre as per the objects

RAJANI PRAKASH KASHID,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

4. We find that for charging of capital gain, the assets referred to in section 45 of the Act have to be such, in the acquisition of which, the assessee had incurred a cost. Admittedly, the assessee has not incurred any cost for acquisition of assets under consideration. The Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to show that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

4. Section 115JB is a self-contained code, and no adjustments other than those specifically prescribed under section 115JB of the Act are permissible Notwithstanding the grounds taken in Point 1, Point 2 and Point 3 above, the NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in making an adjustment under computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act as section 115JB

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

gains. He also relied on the judgment in the case of JM. Mehta and Sons, 214 ITR Page 716. 6. Section 47 of the Act, deals with transaction not recorded as transfer. Section 47 (ii) of the Act, prior to its deletion, it provided: 1. Nothing contained in Section 45 shall apply to the following provisions 2. In distribution

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

Capital Gain to the total income of Rs. Nil returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal by observing as under : “6. Decision:- During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

Capital Loss to various beneficiaries. The company ANAX COM TRADE LIMITED made private allotment of equity shares of Rs.10/- each. The company then merged to M/s. Yamini Investments Co. 4 Ltd. and then the scrip was split on 19.02.2015 in the ratio of 10:1. Share price movement of the scrip from public domain shows a sharp price rise

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

1), 11(4)\nand 11B of the SEBI Act, 1992 and section 12A of the Securities Contracts\n(Regulation) Act, 1956] has clearly held that Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has been\ninvolved in the manipulation of the share price of this listed company and has\nmanipulated so as to utilize this scrip to arrange entry of bogus long term capital

PRADIP PRANLAL SHAH,PUNE vs. AU NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara

1] The Id. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.53,90,000/- made by the Id. A.O. on the ground that the land situated at Gat No.1738, Ranjangaon Ganapati, Tal Shirur, Dist Pune which was sold by the assessee was not an agricultural land and hence, the gain thereon was taxable as long term capital gain

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

4. Evidence in investment in capital gains scheme account 5. Capital gains or loss computation statement (iii) Submission filed on 3-7-2019 giving the following details: (Page 81) (a) Evidence regarding cost of improvement 1. AO has given a wrong finding that appellant sold a plot of land and purchased a new plot of land. In fact the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

1)(iii).\nWhile adjudicating the claim for deduction u/s 36(l)(iii), the nature\nof expenses, whether the expenses are on capital account or revenue\naccount is irrelevant as the section itself says that interest paid by\nthe assessee on the capita! borrowed by the assessee is an item of\ndeduction. The utilization of the capital is irrelevant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

4. The A.O. did not accept respondent's claim of long term capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Capital gains" and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section ,72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, 14[or sub- section (2) of section 73A] or sub-section (1) 15[or sub-section (3)] of section 74, 16 [or sub-section (3) of section 74A] , he may furnish

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

GAURI SAGAR SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

1) of the Act and also issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to show cause as to why the addition should not be made taxing the capital gain arising on account of the said development agreement. In response thereto, the assessee furnished her response raising objections against the above addition proposed to be made

MR GANESH RAMBHAV PAKHE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1097/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain on the transfer of the property and claiming exemption u/s.54F of the Act. 5. Sub-section (5) of section 139, prior to its substitution by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01-04-2017, provides that: “If any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or in pursuance to a notice issued under sub-section (1