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 50C are not applicable on the facts of the case. The ratio laid down by the above decision, supports the contention of the appellant.\n6.8 The next contention and conclusion

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains attributable to such activities as does not\nexceed,-\n(1)\n(ii) in any other case, fifty thousand rupees\nshall be deducted, while computing the total income of the assessee.\nAs per above section, the asessee is eligible for Deduction of Rs 50,000/- from gross total\nIncome, similarly claimed as deduction U/S 80P(2)(c) from the total

VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “House Property, Income from S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 Partnership firms, Capital Gains and Income from Other sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.78,24,250/-. Against the said return of income

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

2%-3% commission from the beneficiaries on the\namount of LTCG provided. However, there were various expenses payments\nmade by me. I had to pay commission to the exit providers and various other\nexpenses Including trading loss.1 had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses 1 had\nearned approx

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

2%-3% commission from the beneficiaries on the\namount of LTCG provided. However, there were various expenses payments\nmade by me. I had to pay commission to the exit providers and various other\nexpenses Including trading loss. I had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses I had\nearned approx

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 Rs.68,56,000 gain A/c (v) Exemption claimed Rs.2,26,33,135 g) The above facts clearly show that Appellant has claimed deduction u/s 54 of Act and not u/s 54F of Act as held and disallowed by the AO. h) Appellant has submitted all the bills/vouchers regarding Cost of improvement of residential property sold before the AO during

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

2%-3% commission from the beneficiaries on the\namount of LTCG provided. However, there were various expenses payments\nmade by me. I had to pay commission to the exit providers and various other\nexpenses Including trading loss.1 had not disclosed this income in my return\nof Income. After taking in to account the abovementioned expenses 1 had\nearned approx

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 :

capital gains (section 50C), business profits (section 43CA) and other sources (section 56) arising out of transactions in immovable property, the sale consideration or stamp duty value, whichever is higher is adopted. The difference is taxed as income both in the hands of the purchaser and the seller. It has been pointed out that this variation can occur in respect

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56 of the Act and was not 100% deductible from the Gross\nTotal Income under Section 80P of the Act, is not applicable to the\npresent Assessment Years 2007-2008 to 2011-2012 involved in the\npresent appeals and therefore, whether the Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal as well as CIT(Appeals) were justified in holding that such\ninterest income

LALCHAND NARAYAN BHAKT,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 2, JALNA

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2011-12

capital gains and taxing the same on a protective basis. 8 2. The addition made by the learned AO and partly confirmed by the CIT(A) NFAC Delhi to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- being the 50% share of the amount of Rs.50,00,000/- received by the appellant during the year under consideration towards advance against the agreement

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 no. 2

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

56(2)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A for under reporting of income are initiated herewith.” 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “5.2 I have gone through the submission of the appellant along with supporting documents submitted during the appellate proceedings as well as during the assessment proceedings

VIKAS RATANLAL JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

capital asset therefore provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. Ld. AR further submitted that in subsequent year i.e. during Asstt. Year 2016-17 when the plots were sold by the assessee, income was shown under the head profits and gains

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 56(2)(x) & 50CA in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the second valuation report furnished by assessee for the purpose of land situated at Survey No. 79, 82, 63 & 86 Village-Yerur valuing

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings initiated under 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

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings initiated under 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

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, the assessment proceedings initiated under 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

LATIKA SAKHARAM PATIL,RAJASTHAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), JALGAON

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

capital gain and claimed deduction u/s 54 of the I.T. Act Therefore, the Ld. AO made the impugned addition of the difference amount of Rs.17,76,450/- as income other from other sources u/s 56(2)(x) of the I.T. Act, 1961 to the total income of the assessee. 3 During the course of appellant proceedings, the appellant has submitted