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

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 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

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

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

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

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: i) Full Value Consideration

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

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 on 17.02.2021 including therein