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

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

54D, 54G, 54GA – whether deduction from 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

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

NARENDRA SHANTIKUMAR FIRODIA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 494/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, 5 Shobha Sadan, Aurangabad Road, Dsp Chowk, Ahmednagar – 414 002 Pan :Aabpf6158K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/03/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Upholding The Order Of Assessment Dt. 28/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

Gains in the hands of the seller u/s 48 of the Act. Before us, the case sought to be made out by the assessee is that Section 50C, being a deeming provision, has to be strictly interpreted, a proposition ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 8 Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, ITA No. 494/PUN/2020 AY: 2014-15 which is quite acceptable

KALA ARVIND JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

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

54D, 54EC, 54EE, 54F, 54G, 54GA, 54GB, 115F, etc. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for details regarding the consideration received on sale of land and claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2,71,06,162/-. The assessee submitted the requisite details online

AJINKYA DILIP KOTEPATIL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1(3),, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1877/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ajinkya Dilip Kotepatil, C/O. S.B. Boob & Associates, F-1, Sumangal Plaza, Hdfc Cross Road, Canada Corner, Nashik-422005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Cqxpk0159D बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-1(3), ……""यथ" / Respondent Nashik. Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Alok Malviya सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-1, Nashik Dated 13.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Assessee Had Voluntarily Surrendered The Income During The Course Of Assessment Proceeding & Paid Almost Taxes Accordingly. However, The Ao & Appellate Commissioner Erred & Levied & Confirmed The Penalty. 2. This Was The First Time When The Assessee Was Scrutinized & He Is A Student After All. However, He Had Declared Additional Income & Paid The Taxes & Showed His Bonafide Intention.

capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee filed the return of income declaring total income of Rs.1,98,719/- after claiming deduction u/s 54B, 54C, 54D, 54G and 54GA of the Act. At the end of the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.60