INDUBAI DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain. In view of this, the additional evidence produced during appellate proceedings is not admissible in the light of provisions of Rule 46A of I. T. Rules, 1962, as his case is not falling under any of the exceptional clauses as mentioned in Rule 46A. 7. With regards to the second ground of appeal, it is noticed that

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

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: 4.2.1 On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the deduction is available only when the assessee has either constructed or purchased new property being a residential house within the prescribed time

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue 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.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 2(29A) of the Income Tax Act. Hence the sale of impugned plot gives rise to Long Term Capital Gain. The AO had disallowed Assessee’s Claim for 54F deduction only on the ground that it was not Long-Term Capital Gain. Since now we have held that sale of impugned plot give rise to Long Term Capital Gain

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

capital gains as claimed by the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 68 10 ITA Nos.264 & 23/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 being loan taken by the appellant from his son Mr. Hanif M. Malpekar

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

capital gains as claimed by the appellant. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 2,00,000/- u/s 68 10 ITA Nos.264 & 23/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 being loan taken by the appellant from his son Mr. Hanif M. Malpekar

LAXMAN BHAU PAWALE,AT POST PIRANGUT MUKAIWADI PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2.4 RANGE CODE 53, PUNE SWARGET

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Laxman Bhau Pawale Ito, Ward 2.4, Range At Post Mukaiwadi Code 53, Pune Vs. Pirangut Taluka Mulshi, Pune – 412115 Pan: Bzlpp3421M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Sudam Kudale Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

gain. Since the assessee has not complied to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the various evidences filed before him in shape of 4 additional evidence in absence of any application made under Rule 46A and thereby sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

PRASAD ASHOK POTDAR,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

capital asset” as the said agricultural land was covered by the exception contained in section 2(14)(iii) of the Act. Accordingly, the gains arising on sale of such agricultural land did not lead !o any "income" liable to be taxed in the hands of the assessee. In support of the above claim, certificate dated 8.5.2015 from local 3 A.Y.2011-12

ARATHARAKKAL PUTHUKKUDIYIL MOHAMMAD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1293/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Capital Gain Rs.14,47,402/- ---------------- 3 Aratharakkal Puthukkudiyil Mohammad Eventually, the AO made addition of Rs.14,47,502/- u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act and determined the income at Rs.16,00,500/-. 4. Aggrieved with the assessment, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). 5. Before the First Appellate authority, assessee submitted that the Special Land Acquisition Officer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE vs. YANTRIK ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1283/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21

capital gain. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of ₹16603014 on account of Contractual Receipts, stating 4 Yantrik Engineering Private Limited that the same have been reported as a part of Sale, without appreciating the fact that the nature of these contractual receipts along with supporting documentary

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reverse the order of CIT(A). Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 67. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue relates to the addition made by the AO on account of short term capital gains. 68. Relevant facts of this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reverse the order of CIT(A). Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 67. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue relates to the addition made by the AO on account of short term capital gains. 68. Relevant facts of this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reverse the order of CIT(A). Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 67. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue relates to the addition made by the AO on account of short term capital gains. 68. Relevant facts of this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reverse the order of CIT(A). Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 67. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue relates to the addition made by the AO on account of short term capital gains. 68. Relevant facts of this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in this regard. Therefore, we do not find any reason to reverse the order of CIT(A). Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the revenue is dismissed. 67. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue relates to the addition made by the AO on account of short term capital gains. 68. Relevant facts of this

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MHARASHTRA ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds : “Ground No: 1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding assessment at 300% of income under the head 'Business

M/S. MHARASHTRA ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Capital Gain. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee in appeal has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by raising following grounds : “Ground No: 1 The Id. CIT(A) erred in upholding assessment at 300% of income under the head 'Business

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F deduction claim of Rs.60,18,750/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing on perusal of not only assessment discussions but also from the learned CIT(A)’s findings that he has fails to prove that he has reinvested the corresponding capital gain