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

54F of Act and disallowed the same.  The conditions to be satisfied to claim exemption under 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

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

section 50(2) were attracted and the assessee became liable to be visited with short term capital gain, as has been computed by the AO. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the impugned order on this score. 8. The assessee has raised an additional ground claiming exemption u/ss.54 and 54F

NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Capital Gains Account Scheme, 1988 as per Provision of the Section 54F (4) against the Long Term Capital Gain. ii) That

MR GANESH RAMBHAV PAKHE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1097/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain and also claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment at a total

BALASAHEB POPATRAO PHADOL, NASHIK,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2) NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Balasaheb Popatrao Phadol, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), Nashik. Vaishnav Niwas, Phadol Mala, At Post Ambad, Nashik- 422010. Pan : Apipp8834L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri R. P. Dhaware (Virtual) Revenue By : Ms. Shilpa N. C. Date Of Hearing : 20.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.06.2023 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Ground Of Appeal :- “1. The Development Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2012-13 & Supplementary Agreement Was Executed In The Ay 2013-14. No Sale Of Flats In The Year Of Assessment Order. Only Development Agreement Was Not Transfer U/S 2(47). Commencement Certificate Was Received In The Assessment Year 2013-2014.”

section 2(47)(v) giving rise to any capital gain in hands of assessee and, thus, impugned reopening notice was not justified. Accordingly, in the light of judgement passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court (supra), Ld. AR prayed before the Bench to delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gain under section 54F on account of purchase of new house. The AO decided that the assessee was entitled

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

capital gain under section 54F on account of purchase of new house. The AO decided that the assessee was entitled

RAJESH BALRAM SINGH ,PUNE vs. ACIT , PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

capital gain and eligible for indexation and exemption under section 54F since the proceeds were invested in construction of the family

SHARAD RAMGONDA PATIL,SANGLI vs. I.T.O, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. However, there was no response from the side

DEEPAK HARI KOTALWAR HUF,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD1, NANDED

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Capital Gains Tax Saving account Scheme of State Bank of Hyderabad. As per provisions of section 54F, the assessee is entitled

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

capital gain on the ground that the appellant had made investment in construction of new bungalow prior to the date of transfer of original asset without appreciating that the said disallowance was not warranted on facts and in law. 4. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the investment in the impugned asset was made within a reasonable period

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of art assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 2(29A) of the Income Tax Act. Hence the sale of impugned plot gives rise to Long Term Capital Gain. The AO had disallowed Assessee’s Claim for 54F

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

section 2(14) of the IT Act, accordingly Capital Gain cannot be calculated. Alternatively, it was also submitted before the Bench that sale proceeds/long term capital gain in any case was invested in residential building 8 wherein an amount of Rs.32,05,250/- was invested by the assessee. Accordingly, it was claimed that deduction u/s 54F

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

54F & 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

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

54F & 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

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

54F & 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

SANTOSH KRUSHNA GHULE,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, SATARA, SATARA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.461/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Krushna Ghule, V The Income Tax Officer, 165/9, Sahu Nagar, Godolo, S Ward-5, Satara. Satara – 415001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ayopg3325J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Granting Him Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Ao Had Assessed An Amount Of Rs.53,24,743/- As Long Term Capital Gains Without Santosh Krushna Ghule [A]

capital gains would be chargeable to income tax in the previous year in which the construction of the project was completed and certificate of completion of whole or part of the project was issued by the competent authority. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that