VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

gains. The objection raised by the assessee was against the reference to DVO under section 55A of the Act to determine the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Under the pre-amended provisions of section 55A of the Act with a view to ascertain the fair market value of a capital

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

gains. The objection raised by the assessee was against the reference to DVO under section 55A of the Act to determine the fair market value as on 01.04.1981. Under the pre-amended provisions of section 55A of the Act with a view to ascertain the fair market value of a capital

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

Capital Gains, has been deliberated upon by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) and it has been held as under:- “6 . We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the impugned order dated 18 February, 2011 allowing the respondent assessee's appeal holding that no reference to the Departmental

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

Capital Gains, has been deliberated upon by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Puja Prints (2014) 360 ITR 697 (Bom) and it has been held as under:- “6 . We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the impugned order dated 18 February, 2011 allowing the respondent assessee's appeal holding that no reference to the Departmental

MARUTI G.THOPTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gain? ………. Regarding Questions (a) and (b) 6. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that the impugned order dated 18 February, 2011 allowing the respondent- assessee's appeal holding that no reference to the Departmental Valuation Officer can be made under Section 55A

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK vs. SAGAR SURESH SOMWANSHI,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gains declared by the assessee and made addition. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 27-03-2015, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). 5. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the addition by following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Puja Prints

BHIMA DADA KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Capital Gain as per additions/disallowance appearing in the Assessing Officer’s order. 4. The matter, thereafter, travelled upto the First Appellate Authority and the assessee had filed detailed submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeal). The Ld. CIT(Appeal) after considering the assessment order, submissions of the A.Y.2011-12 assessee, upheld the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal

BALU VITTHAL KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

Capital Gain as per additions/disallowance appearing in the Assessing Officer’s order. 4. The matter, thereafter, travelled upto the First Appellate Authority and the assessee had filed detailed submissions before the Ld. CIT(Appeal). The Ld. CIT(Appeal) after considering the assessment order, submissions of the A.Y.2011-12 assessee, upheld the order of Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal

SANDHYA SURESH DAHIVELKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

55A or section 142A of Income Tax Act.” 4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen widow lady, filed her Return of Income on 27-06-2017 declaring total income at Rs.15,24,570. In this Return of Income, appellant has shown capital gain

DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

capital gains u/s 50C at Rs.1,84,93,000 in place of Rs.2,54,87,000. However, I do not find any merit in the objections raised by the appellant regarding unrealistic valuation of structure by the DVO. Similar objection was raised by the appellant before the DVO which was considered by the DVO and dealt at para 8.1.2 reproduced

KUBER VASANTRAO KENJALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain of Rs.61,02,196/- the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.40,48,460/- to the total income of the assessee. 6. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

capital gains. However, the AO considered the sale consideration under the head ‘business income’ as the flat has shown in stock in trade. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. If the appellant intend to kept the same for his personal use, the flat would

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

capital gains. However, the AO considered the sale consideration under the head ‘business income’ as the flat has shown in stock in trade. In the appellate proceedings, burden of proof lies on the assessee to prove that facts and findings of the AO are incorrect. If the appellant intend to kept the same for his personal use, the flat would

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE , LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. CHANDRABHAGA E. SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain before the ld. first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal and also made enhancement on the basis of the report of DVO, which was received after the completion of assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by such confirmation/enhancement. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue in this appeal

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain before the ld. first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal and also made enhancement on the basis of the report of DVO, which was received after the completion of assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by such confirmation/enhancement. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue in this appeal

SMT. ASHA NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (2),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain before the ld. first appellate authority, who dismissed the appeal and also made enhancement on the basis of the report of DVO, which was received after the completion of assessment. The assessee is aggrieved by such confirmation/enhancement. 3. I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The first issue in this appeal

HEMANT SUDAM TUPE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 1 (3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain. It is seen that the appeal in the case of Shri Nitin N. Shewale came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 06- 02-2020, the Tribunal has directed to adopt Rs.1,032/- as per sq. mtr as fair market value on the date of sale in that case, namely, 08-01-2004 against survey number

UTTAM SADHU TUPE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

capital gain. It is seen that the appeal in the case of Shri Nitin N. Shewale came up for consideration before the Tribunal. Vide order dated 06- 02-2020, the Tribunal has directed to adopt Rs.1,032/- as per sq. mtr as fair market value on the date of sale in that case, namely, 08-01-2004 against survey number