RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

gains. To resolve this controversy, one has ot first decide whether there is a ‘transfer’ of the capital asset during the year. 5.2 Transfer’ has an inclusive definition in sec 2(47) to include:- (47) 34["transfer"-84-, in relation to a capital asset, includes,— ITA No.1133/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwant Shinde Vs. ITO (A) (i) the sale84

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 45 of the Act are met and transfer is completed. He also relied on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT, reported as 260 ITR 491 wherein it has been held that capital gain was taxable in the year in which such transaction were entered

SATISH ZUMBERLAL FIRODIA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.669/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

53A of the TPA and section 17 and 49 of the Registration Act, before amendment, it transpires that part performance of the contract, subject to fulfilment of the stipulated conditions, amounted to transfer recognised by the Registration Act, giving rise to liability towards capital gain

D.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2007-08

capital gain de hors the actual registration. 12. Reverting to the factual panorama, it is seen that the assessee handed over possession of the property to M/s. V.S. Kolbhor & Associates in the year 2000 on receiving substantial part of consideration. This, in our opinion, constituted transfer u/s. 2(47)(v) of the Act read with section 53A

BALASAHEB POPATRAO PHADOL, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Nashik. Vaishnav Niwas, Phadol Mala, At Post Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Apipp8834L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual) Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “1. The Development Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2012-13 & Supplementary Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2013-14. No Sale Of Flats In The Year Of Assessment Order. Only Development Agreement Was Not Transfer U/S 2(47). Commencement Certificate Was Received In The Assessment Year 2013-2014.”

capital gains income had arisen to assessee on transfer of development rights in its land to a developer, since assessee had merely granted licence to permit construction on land to such developer but not given any possession in land as contemplated under section 53A

APPASAHEB BBAURAO LONKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.888/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar 562/2, Aaryavart Society, Shivajinagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. Pan: Aagpl9688R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 4(4) Pune

gains in his hands. 11. Section 2(47) of the Act lays down that transfer in relation to capital asset includes various modes of transfer in which under clause (v) it involves a transaction wherein allowing of possession of any immovable property is taken or retained in part performance of the contract of the nature referred to in section 53A

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

capital gain is not taxable. The Ld. AO observed that the contention of the assessee is devoid 4 ITA No.607/PUN/2024, AY 2014-15 of any merits and proceeded to make addition of Rs.2,59,24,250/- to the returned income of the assessee observing inter alia as under : “03.2.2 The assessee has stated that as per clause 2 & 3, assessee

SEEMA SUBHASH ZAMBAD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1280/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

gain in the hands of assessee and a further sum of Rs.1.42 crore as business income on the transfer of such land to M/s. Fulzan Properties. The ld. CIT(A) echoed the assessment order on this point. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 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 (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

Capital Gain Tax on total consideration mentioned in the agreement of Rs.20 crores after reducing index cost of acquisition. AO also denied assessee’s claim for deduction under section 54F stating that no details were filed. The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the AO. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. Submission

M/S. ARCH HYDRO POWER PROJECTS PVT.LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 2(47) of the Act and the gains from the transaction are liable to be assessed u/s 45 of the Act. As the assessee has held the capital asset for less than 36 months immediately preceding the date of its transfer, the gain was brought to tax as short term capital gains. Aggrieved the assessee went in appeal before

LALCHAND NARAYAN BHAKT,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 2, JALNA

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gain should be taxed in the year of entering into development agreement. He also referred to the decision of the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Hussain Lal Puri vs. ITO wherein it has been held that it is not necessary in terms of section 2(47)(v) of the Act that 4 the developer should

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

capital gain become taxable in assessment year 1999-2000 in terms of Section 45(i) of the Act. The 9 Hon‟ble Bombay High in the aforesaid judgement had an occasion to consider the import of the expression „transfer‟ as per the Section 2(47) of the Act in case of a „development agreement‟ between the land owner

SACHIN RAMESH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 8(2), SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1753/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

capital gains made by the Ld. AO and upheld by the CIT(A) on alleged transfer of the land as per section 2(47) of the Act read within the meaning of section 53A

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

capital gain become taxable in assessment year 1999-2000 in terms of Section 45(i) of the Act. The Hon’ble Bombay High in the aforesaid judgement had an occasion to consider the import of the expression ‘transfer’ as per the Section 2(47) of the Act in case of a ‘development agreement’ between the land owner and a developer

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

capital gains has been claimed correctly”. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were 2 issued and served on the assessee, in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has sold agricultural

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7, PUNE vs. SUBHASH S. GOEL, PUNE

Bench: The Appeal Is Heard & Disposed Off.”

Capital gain instead of full consideration as per the sale deed. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the clause (v) and (vi) of Section 2(47) of the Act r.w.s. 53A

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SUREKHA SUDHAKAR JADHAVAR,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.151/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Accit, Circle-6, Surekha Sudhakar Jadhavar, Pune. Vs. 64, Indraprastha, Wadgaon Bk, Kranti Nagar, Pune – 411041. Pan: Afspj 9291 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sachin P Kumar – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 12/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune’S Order Dated 05.05.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ito, Wd-6(2), Pune/360/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains addition of Rs.37563656/- made in the course of assessment herein dated 30.12.2016 after holding the assessee’s registered development agreement dated 08.04.2017 in favour of M/s.Venkatesh Associates regarding her land in village Dhayari, Tal. Haveli, Dist. Pune; as an incident of transfer attracting section 2(47)(v) r.w.s 53A