DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on\nseveral counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be\nquashed.\n\n3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has\nerred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us.\n143(3) r.w.s.147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

M/S. CHAKRABARTY MEDICAL CENTRE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Chakrabarty Medical Centre, C-802, Palmdale, California Apartments, Nibm, Undri Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411060 …. Pan: Aabfc5809Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei

capital gain in the hands of partnership firm, which was debatable issue and in such circumstances, it cannot be presumed that there was concealment or filing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer rejecting the plea of assessee held the assessee to have concealed the income and levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹ 56

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

capital gain account showing the deposit of Rs.68,56,000/- on 31.07.2017. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain the claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act to PMC to obtain the status of completion of construction on the plot No.4 wherein the assessee

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

56,850 0 6,48,284 4 Securities earning taxable income 1,01,93,510 3,000 0 Total 25,55,33,814 10,27,180 12,26,7022 ITA No.380/PUN/2020 for A.Y. 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Circle-4, Pune (A) It was the contention of the appellant before the learned A.O. that for computing

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain admitted on sale of flat (computation, customer ledger, first page of deed; possession certificate etc) but the assessee has not filed any objection against proposed addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on purchase of immovable property. Hence, it is presumed that the assessee has no objection to the proposed addition being the differential amount (Rs.10,76,291/-) between

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Capital Gain is also to be included as Profit eligible for deduction u/sec.80IAB of the Act. Ld.AR admitted that the said claim was not made before the Assessing Officer(AO) or in the Return of Income(RoI). 2.2 The relevant part of the written submission filed by the Ld.AR is reproduced here as under : Quote, “Ground

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 111A for transactions entered into after 01.10.2004 i.e. the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance Act 2004 came into force. There are certain other issues, as pointed out by the Assessing Officer, which should not be lost sight of and are relevant for deciding the issue. The appellant has taken full advantage of business losses

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

CHHAYA VILAS DENGLE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

gain which is not utilised by the assessee for the purchase of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income u/s 139, shall be deposited by him before furnishing such return [such deposit being made in any case not later than the due date applicable in the case of the assessee for furnishing the return

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

capital gain account scheme is concerned, it is fact that assessee had not filed the return u/s 139(1) of the Act but had filed the return of income within the time limit prescribed u/s 139(4) of the Act which was upto 31.03.2013. It is assessee’s case that prior to filing of income tax return, assessee had utilized

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 56. At present, while taxing income from capital gains (section 50C), business profits (section 43CA) and other sources (section

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located at Sindh

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

capital gain on additional consideration of Rs.52,56,200/- on account of compensation received on entering into registered sale deed. The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that provisions of section