INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANVEL vs. PRAMOD ARJUN THAKUR,, RAIGAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.860/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains and other sources. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed by the appellant on 31.03.2017, declaring therein total income of Rs.7,78,000/-. Addition of Rs.6,54,61,100/- was made by the Id AO by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2)(vii

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

56 clause\n(cc)(vi).Registration certificate is attachéd herewith.\n5. Objective of the entity-\nThe objectives of society as per bylaws are as under-\nTo promote co-operative movement and to help members to become independents\no To accept deposits and share capital from members\n• To raise funds or accept loans from outsiders.\n• To give and recover

HASHA KACHARU TANDEL,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD-2, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56(2) (vii)(b) of the Act and submitted that the correct head of income is income from Capital Gains. The appellant has submitted copies of lease agreement, tripartite agreement and agreement for registration of flats in support of her claim. A perusal of the agreement for registration of one of the flats reveals that the fair market value

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

CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. However, for applicability of Section 14 and thereafter Section 56, what is required is the receipt in the nature of income. In Circular No.447, it has been clearly stated "In view of this, it is clarified that such awards in the cases of a sportsman

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

vii) This issue has been addressed in KatlaryKariyana, supra by Hon\nGujarat HC:\nPara 6: KatlaryKariyana\n5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt has further taken this\nCourt to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of\nIncome Tax Circle, Himmatnagar, while disposing of the\nobjections filed by the assessee against the reassessment\nproceedings under Section 147 and has strenuously submitted

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

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

vii) of clause (a) enumerates the type of businesses and the last line says "the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to anyone or more of such activities." The assessee's business is covered in clause (a) (i)- "in the case of a co-operative Society engaged in-(i) carrying on the business of banking

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

2) to deal with a situation where stock in trade is converted into investment and later on such investment were sold at a profit, the formula which is favourable to the assessee should be accepted. However this decision was rendered for A.Ys 2000-01 & 2001-02 wherein there was no differentiation in the tax rate between long term capital gain

VIKAS BHAGOJI SHINDE,PIMPRI PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(4) AKURDI , NIGDI PRADHIKARAN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1879/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(4), Akurdi. 517/2496, Akshay Hsg Society, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri- 411018. Pan : Adyps0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Making & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3050000 U/S 56(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act When The Amount Paid To The Seller As Well As To Others For Cancellation Of Deeds Of This Property Is More Than The Market Valuation. The Addition Made On This Account Be Deleted & Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect.

section 56(vii)(b) of the IT Act as well as of short-term capital gain calculated on the basis of so-called sale of immovable property. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 23rd

VINAYA ABHIJIT GAJENDRAGADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for the purposes of stamp duty valuation, Fair Market Value as on 25.05.2007 should have been considered by Ld. AO for calculating long term capital gain

VINAYA ABHIJIT GAJENDRAGADKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.586 & 585/Pun/2025 Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15

section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act for the purposes of stamp duty valuation, Fair Market Value as on 25.05.2007 should have been considered by Ld. AO for calculating long term capital gain

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

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

vii) This issue has been addressed in KatlaryKariyana, supra by Hon Gujarat HC: Para 6: KatlaryKariyana 5. Learned senior advocate Mr. Bhatt has further taken this Court to the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle, Himmatnagar, while disposing of the objections filed by the assessee against the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 and has strenuously submitted

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

vii) of the Act and also within meaning of Article 12 of DTAA between India and USA. The Assessing Officer thus, invoked provisions of section 195 of the Act for payment of license fees and held that the assessee was bound to deduct taxes before remitting the money to non-resident and by not deducting or withholding taxes, the assessee

YASHWANT NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

56,610/- capital 2.1 The AO further observed that Assessee society can be treated as Co-Operative Bank based on nature of its activities. Then the AO relied on Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case of the Totagars Co-Operative Sale Society and held that the assessee is not eligible for deduction