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

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

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

SIDDHARTH PANDARINATH BHADALE,PUNE vs. ITO, PNE-W-(58)(91), PUNE

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which allows for such a reference to ensure an accurate and fair valuation of the property. Accordingly, addition made on this ground and upheld by the CIT(A) ought to be deleted and the Appellant be granted just & proper relief in this regard. Tax Effect: 21,80,594/- 5. On the facts

SUSHILA JALINDHAR PATOLE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHPAUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sushila Jalindhar Patole, V The Income Tax Officer, 84/1, E Ward Patole Mala, New S Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. Palace Road, Karvir, Kolhapur – 416003. Maharashtra. Pan: Eogpp8290P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde –Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025 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)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2025. Though Ld.Cit(A) Has Mentioned A.Y.2010-11 In The Heading, But In The Body Of The Order A.Y.2011-12 Is Mentioned Which Is Correct Assessment Year.

Section 55A is amended. In the present case, the appellant has sold the lands on 03.06.2010 and on 10.06.2010 much before the amendment and hence the ratio of the above decisions squarely applies to the case of the appellant. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court, I hold that the AO's reference to the DVO for determination