SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.3, Oscar Pride, Date V Ward-3, Ahmednagar. Colony, Behind Atharva S Mangal Karyalaya, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Afapr 3796 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2023 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(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 22.01.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane [A]

54B. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

RAMDULAR JAMNAPRASAD SAHU,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu, The Deputy 215, Hadapsar, Shimpi Ali V Commissioner Of Income Circle-14, Pune – 411028. S Tax, Circle-14, Pune. Maharashtra. Pan: Adips 7528 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte - Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023 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)[Nfac] Dated 08.06.2023Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16; Emanating From Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.10.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu [A]

54B. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital

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

gain arising on sale of the said agricultural land situated at village Mukalwadi Pirangut, Taluka Mulshi, Pune is exempt from taxation as the said land is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of ITA, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of the grounds of appeal. 10. The Ld. Counsel

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

54B of the Act at Rs.2,85,69,375/-. 4. Subsequently the Ld. PCIT examined the record and noted that the assessee during the year had sold a land for a consideration of Rs.13,75,95,200/- on which long term capital gain was offered at Rs.6,19,31,262/-. From the working of long term capital gain he noted

VYANKATRAO PANDURANG PATIL,LATUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1386/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, V Dy.Commissioner Of Mauli Chembers, Above Mauli S. Income Tax, Circle, Jewellers, Yashwantrao Chavan Latur. Complex, Main Road, Latur. Maharashtra – 413512. Pan: Abjpp6387P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 23.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

54B of Rs.47548176/- is hereby disallowed and added to the long term capital gain. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 8. Section

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

54B, 54C, 54D, 54G, 54GA" and the assessment was finalized after accepting the said claim. Further, the Revenue Audit raised objection regarding the said claim and stated that as per section 63 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Land Act, 1948, no sale of agricultural land is valid in favors of person who is not an agriculturist. He further stated that

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gains in the long term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. It was held that in absence of an express provision contained in these sections that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only, any such interpretation were to be placed, it amounts to Court introducing

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gains in the long term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. It was held that in absence of an express provision contained in these sections that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only, any such interpretation were to be placed, it amounts to Court introducing

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

gains was not utilized within the stipulated period of two years, and accordingly, the exemption u/s.54 cannot be granted because the substantial requirement of purchasing new property was not satisfied. 5.6.4 Also, Section 54B(1) of the Act is subject to the provisions of section (2) which, in turn, provides that: "The amount of the capital

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement of a land on 30/07/2010 and the capital gain was calculated on that date on account of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. There is no dispute at the end of the Ld.AO that assessee

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement of a land on 30/07/2010 and the capital gain was calculated on that date on account of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. There is no dispute at the end of the Ld.AO that assessee

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement of a land on 30/07/2010 and the capital gain was calculated on that date on account of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. There is no dispute at the end of the Ld.AO that assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. SMITA ASHOK SONAWANE, NASHIK

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 2(14) of the Act, the said impugned land is not capital asset and accordingly no capital gain on sale of agricultural land is chargeable to tax. For the very same, reasons, the AO has, thus fallen into error by treating the stamp value of the impugned land as stamp value of non-agricultural land and thereby adding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. SHRI SUBHASH HASTIMAL LODHA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Capital Gains for the purpose of taxation vide his letter dated 11/03/2016 submitted during the course of assessment proceedings. On appeal before the NFAC, the NFAC merely extracted the submissions made by the respondent-assessee, thereafter, simply jumped to the conclusion that the Assessing Officer was not justified in denying the claim for deduction u/s 54B without examining in detail

VAIJNATH GUNDAPPA KSHIRSAGAR THROUGH L/H. SHRI SHIVKUMAR SADRAMAPPA KSHIRSAGAR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -1, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

Capital Gains tax. 3. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs. 1,50,00,000/-out of the sale proceeds of agricultural land in purchasing agricultural land within the stipulated time and he was entitled to deduction under section 54B

SUSHMA PRAMOD NIMHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. The above grounds of appeal may kindly be allowed to be altered, amended, modified, deleted etc in the interest of natural justice.” 4. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. For the AY 2015-16 she filed her return of income on 31.12.2015 declaring total

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

54B, 54EC, 54EE, 54F, 54G, 54GA, 54GB etc. (Non-business ITR)” 3. On perusal of the IT return, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has declared Long term capital gain of Rs.18,87,563/- by claiming the deduction u/s 2 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), details of which are as under

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), PUNE, SWARGATE vs. MANGAL BALASAHEB GOLE, KOTHRUD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Ito, Ward 2(4), Pune Mangal Balasaheb Gole Vs. Pirangut, Kothrud, S.O Pune City, Pune – 411038 Affpg6617R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

Capital Gains” on account of disallowance of cost of acquisition, despite the fact that the assessee failed to furnish any documentary evidence in support of the said cost in respect of certain parcels of land. 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying upon the report