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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this penny stock company listed on BSE Script Code 531769. It was stated that this company has been used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of members or beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain or short Term Capital Loss in their books of accounts

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

section 10(38) of the Act. The assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this penny stock company listed on BSE Script Code 531769. It was stated that this company has been used to facilitate introduction of unaccounted income of members or beneficiaries in the form of exempt capital gain or short Term Capital Loss in their books of accounts

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

gain, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on such bogus long term capital and made addition of Rs.85,38,145/- u/s 68 of the Act. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

42. The theory of apportionment of expenditure between taxable and non-taxable income, has in principle been widened under Sec 14A. Reading Section 14A in juxtaposition with section 15 to 59 it has been observed that the word "expenditure incurred” in Sec 14A refers to expenditure on rent, tax, salary, interest etc. in respect of which allowances’ are provided

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

capital Rs.68,56,000 gain A/c (v) Exemption claimed Rs.2,26,33,135 g) The above facts clearly show that Appellant has claimed deduction u/s 54 of Act and not u/s 54F of Act as held and disallowed by the AO. h) Appellant has submitted all the bills/vouchers regarding Cost of improvement of residential property sold before the AO during

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

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

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

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

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

42,000 shares for Rs.73,08,000/- in A.Y. 2011-12 and Balance of 2,08,000 shares were sold in A.Y. 2012-13 for Rs.1,48,30,096/-. The capital Gains arising on sale are already reflected in my Balance Sheet. The dates of Sale and Purchase and copies of relevant Pass Books shall be submitted later

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

section 50(2), he computed the short term capital gain by reducing the written down value and value of the block from the sale consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-, for determining short term capital gain at Rs.31,31,800/-. Since the benefit of depreciation was claimed by considering the construction of new building as part of the block

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

capital gain on transfer/sale of shares instead of business income because the transaction relates to sale of shares and does not relate to the normal business transaction. Thus, this ground of appeal is hereby partly allowed. 16.1 In this regard we find that a special section i.e.43AA was inserted in the statute book w.e.f 01-04-2017 which deals with

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH DANABHAI PATEL,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1534/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain arising from sale of aforesaid land. The ld. DR submitted that for claiming benefit of deduction 4 A.Y. 2012-13 u/s. 54B, it is mandatory that the land is used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which transfer of such land took place. And agricultural activities should have been carried out either