MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

capital gain with the term 'transfer' as defined in section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act. At the cost

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and\ncontract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not\nproved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not\nbe treated as unaccounted income under section

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and\ncontract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not\nproved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not\nbe treated as unaccounted income under section

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

section 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred is a long-term capital asset and hence there is a long term capital gain

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

54 taxmann.com 108, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and contract note showed details of share transaction and Assessing Officer had not proved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section

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

54 taxmann.com 108 (Bom), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where DMAT account and\ncontract note showed details of share transaction and the Assessing Officer had not\nproved said transaction as bogus, capital gain earned on said transaction could not\nbe treated as unaccounted income under section

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

Section 139 of the Act. 9. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra.) while considering assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54 where the assessee had deposited unutilized portion of capital gain

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the State Bank of India as under:— (a) SBI Capital Gains

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the State Bank of India as under:— (a) SBI Capital Gains

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the State Bank of India as under:— (a) SBI Capital Gains

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 54 of the Income-tax Act (\"the Act\" for short). Amount\nwhich remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the\nState Bank of India as under:—\n(a) SBI Capital Gains

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 54 of the Income-tax Act (\"the Act\" for short). Amount\nwhich remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the\nState Bank of India as under:—\n(a) SBI Capital Gains

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount\nwhich remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the\nState Bank of India as under:—\n(a) SBI Capital Gains

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

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

54,420/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.09.2013 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-II/ACIT Cir-4/299/2011- 12) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee has raised the following grounds : “The appellant would like to object the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals

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

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

54,420/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.09.2013 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-II/ACIT Cir-4/299/2011- 12) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee has raised the following grounds : “The appellant would like to object the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals

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

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

54,420/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.03.09.2013 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-II/ACIT Cir-4/299/2011- 12) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee has raised the following grounds : “The appellant would like to object the impugned order of the CIT (Appeals

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

Capital gains‟, but is subject to exemptions u/s.54, 54F etc., if the requisite conditions of such sections are fulfilled. 10. Here is a case in which the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54

SHEELA DEEPAK GUNDECHA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

54. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain