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

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

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

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

UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

vii) and Section 36(2) of the Act the Amount needs to be written Off as irrecoverable in the accounts of the assessee. Also, as per section 36(2) of the Act such Debts should have been taken into account in computing the income of the assessee of the previous year in which such debt is written off. Both these

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

2 to Section 36(l)(vii) introduced by the Finance Act, 2013 with effect from 01st April, 2014. The subject year is the first of operation of the Explanation. 50. As has been explained by the CIT(A) in his order (in para 8.1), the amendment seeks to overrule the earlier judgment of various Courts, which permitted the claim

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1068/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sharadchandra Nagari Sahakari V The Income Tax Officer, Patsanstha Maryadit, S Ward-10(1), Pune. At Post–Rajuri, Taluka–Junnar, Dist. Pune – 412411. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaabs1016L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhay Avachat – Ar Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

56 and the Id. CIT A erred in confirming the said treatment of AO. 4. The assessee prays to allow deduction of proportionate expenses u/s 57 if it is ultimately decided to tax the bank interest. 5. The AO and CIT A has erred in not following judgements of appellate forums including high court and supreme court. 6. The reassessment

BHAUSAHEB SOPANRAO BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -9(1), PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.74/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains. If a buyer purchases an encumbered property and takes upon himself the task of removing the encumbrances, it will still amount to transfer. On the other hand, if the transfer of an encumbered property has an obligation attached with the seller to remove the encumbrances, then one needs to see the consequences of such non-removal

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

gained from filing this appeal with a delay. We\ntherefore taking guidance from the judgments of Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &\nAnr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in\nthe case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment\ndated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

gained from filing this appeal with a delay. We\ntherefore taking guidance from the judgments of Hon'ble Apex\nCourt in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag &\nAnr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in\nthe case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment\ndated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condone the delay

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

SHRI AJINKYA MAHADEV KANCHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-43(3), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 250(6) of the Act being arbitrary, illegal and bad-in- law be quashed/set-aside. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal of the appellant and consequently confirming the various arbitrary additions made

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gain from sale of TDR as exempt\nfrom tax u/s.96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and\nTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement\nAct, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).\n2. The brief facts of the case is that during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the Respondent's\ncapital account had increased by Rs.6