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

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.

54B(2), the assessee should have invested/deposited the amount before the due date for fur the due date for furnishing return of in nishing return of income under s come under sub-section section (1) of Section 139 of the Act. 9. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (supra.) while considering

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

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

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

CHHAYA VILAS DENGLE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

SHRI TUSHAR JAGMOHAN KAMTHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 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)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

Section 54B is reproduced as under: 73[Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PUNE vs. DNYANOBA SHIVRAM BHINTADE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

54B of the Act by Assessing Officer, in case the assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in the said section. Admittedly, the assessee had not offered any income from Long Term Capital Gains

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

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

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

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

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

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

SANJAY AMRUTRAO SATAV (HUF),PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

Section 2[14][iii][b][III] of the I.T. Act 1961 were inapplicable and the impugned land was an agriculture land not amounting to Capital asset giving rise to any taxable Capital gains as on the date of conversion. In the circumstances it may please be held that the appellant had rightly 3 claimed the deduction u/s 54B

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

54B in respect of investment of Capital Gains in purchase of agricultural land. The provisions of Section 54B, as applicable

BHAGWAN RAGHUNATH PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3),, PUNE

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

54B at Rs. 61,50,169/-. The net balance being Rs.1,57,239/-. In response to the notice u/s. 142(1) & 143(2) the Assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that, out of the total consideration on sale of agricultural land situated at Survey No.67 at Kharadi Pune on 06.08.2011, he and his wife Latabai pathare had received consideration

NARAYANSINGH PATIL,BHUSAWAL vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, NASIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.32/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Naryansingh Dongarsingh Patil, The Principal Khalchi Galli, Near Motha Maruti Vs Commissioner Of Mandir Sakari Deepnagar, Income Tax-2,Nashik. Bhusawal – 425307. Pan: Bglpp 3996 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms. J R Chandekar – Ar Revenue By Shri M. M. Chate –Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Nashik, Dated 30.03.2020For The A.Y. 2015-16 Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pr. Cit Was Not Justified In Holding The Assessment Order Of Pr. Cit-2, Nashik As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest The Interest Of Revenue Within The Meaning Of S. 263 Of The Act. Since On The Facts & Law S. 263 Does Not Apply The Order Passed By Pr. Cit-2 Nashik Be Quashed & Set Aside.

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

DNYANESHWAR PANDHARINATH TALEKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.877/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

Capital Gain of the Income Tax Act, 1961. IV. Grounds related section 54B Investment 7. The Ld. AO has made

KISHOR GANPAT KARANDE,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gain and claimed deduction u/s. 54B of the Act, in my opinion, is a wrong claim, denial of the same for violation of provisions u/s. 54B of the Act is misconceived. As noted earlier, the assessee fulfilled all the conditions contemplated in clause (i) to (iv) of sub-section

MURTUZA SHABBIR JAMNAGARWALA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

gains”. There is no quarrel over the proposition that the land transferred by the assessee did not satisfy the conditions given in section 2(14) of the Act and hence qualified as a “capital asset”. 6. Section 54B

FARIZODDIN AHEMAD KOKANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

capital gain in the context of provisions of section 54B. The only condition is that the land sold should be used