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

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

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

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

SANDESH VASANTRAO PAWAR,SATARA, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATARA, MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2379/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, does not apply here, as the developer has not undertaken any construction-related work under the development agreement. Activities such as demolishing old structures, fencing, and installing bore-wells do not qualify as "part performance." Part performance requires substantial construction actions, such as laying the foundation or obtaining construction plan approvals from

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

gains arising on sale of property was offered to tax in the said assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee firm also placed reliance on the provisions of section 42, 54 and 55 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the above contentions of the assessee firm and proceeded to hold that there

ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

gains arising on sale of property was offered to tax in the said assessment year i.e. A.Y. 2016-17. The assessee firm also placed reliance on the provisions of section 42, 54 and 55 of the Transfer Property Act, 1882. 3. The Assessing Officer rejected the above contentions of the assessee firm and proceeded to hold that there

UDAY JAWAHAR KOTNIS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Jawahar Kotnis, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. 601 A Building, Waterfront, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411001. Pan : Abtpk0141N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri V. L. Jain : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,75,00,000/- As Commission Under The Head Income From Other Sources. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Or Add To The Same, If Deemed Necessary.

Capital Gains, Investment in immovable property & deduction against income from other sources.” 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, statutory notice was issued to the assessee & in reply assessee furnished necessary information & documents. After considering the reply of the assessee & in the absence of evidences in support of claim of deduction of Rs.1,75,00,000/- made by the assessee