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

73(4) and the decision relied on by the A.O. of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. DLF Commercial Developers Ltd. (2013) 261 CTR 127, 218 Taxman 45 are not applicable to the case of the appellant. Section 43 (5) ―43 In sections 28 to 41 and in this section unless context otherwise requires

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 54B of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the capital gain on transfer of land. 3. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned AO and the CIT (Appeals) have erred in considering year of transfer of capital asset and charging it to tax in the Assessment Year 2017-18. 4. The learned CIT (Appeals

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 Gains under section 80IAB of the Act in the Return of Income and in the Form No.10CCB. Ld.DR for the Revenue took us through the relevant pages of the Return of Income. Ld.DR relied on section 80A(5) of the Income Tax Act. Ld.DR submitted that conjoint reading of Section 80A(5) and Section 80AC makes it clear that

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

INDUBAI DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section that the deduction can be claimed if the investment is made in any other's name. Thus the A.O. has rightly disallowed the deduction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs.8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant

DASHRATH DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section that the deduction can be claimed if the investment is made in any other's name. Thus the A.O. has rightly disallowed the deduction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs.8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5, PUNE vs. DNYANOBA SHIVRAM BHINTADE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

73,364/- as short term capital gains and Rs.1,05,64,309/- as long term capital gains. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), wherein the assessee also claimed deduction u/s 54B of the Act by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Pruthvi Brokers

SHRI TUSHAR JAGMOHAN KAMTHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 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)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

Section 54B is reproduced as under: 73[Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged

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"

gain of Rs.26,37,61,074/-. Out of this amount, the assessee invested Rs.16,36,33,087/- for purchasing a residential bungalow at Sind Co-operative Housing Society in the month of November, 2011 and claimed deduction u/s. 54F of the Act. This amount of Rs.16,36,33,087/- has four segments i.e. Rs.15,73,32,013/- ( DD charge

APPASAHEB BBAURAO LONKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.888/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar 562/2, Aaryavart Society, Shivajinagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. Pan: Aagpl9688R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 4(4) Pune

gain which arises from the transfer of a capital asset, which could be brought to tax under Section 45 read with Section 48 of the Income Tax Act. 13. The assessee in the affidavit explaining the delay in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal has also mentioned the factual aspects and the legal 9 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar dispute

KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain for more than three years and thereafter, entered into an agreement. But in the instant case of the assessee herein within the time framed, the agreement was entered into between the assessee and the developer and even, advance was paid before the due date of filing return. The bona-fide attitude of the assessee and the genuineness

PRANAY LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain for more than three years and thereafter, entered into an agreement. But in the instant case of the assessee herein within the time framed, the agreement was entered into between the assessee and the developer and even, advance was paid before the due date of filing return. The bona-fide attitude of the assessee and the genuineness

LALITKUMAR KESARIMAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain for more than three years and thereafter, entered into an agreement. But in the instant case of the assessee herein within the time framed, the agreement was entered into between the assessee and the developer and even, advance was paid before the due date of filing return. The bona-fide attitude of the assessee and the genuineness

VITA URBAN CREDIT CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2390/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 2(14) and 45 of the Act were attracted and gain arising therefrom was to be assessed as income from capital gains in the hands of assessee. 10. The aspect which needs consideration is whether the act of acquisition of property by the assessee society and its sale was its business decision or was it a decision taken

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to Revenue either. 34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that though we are not entirely agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal contained in the impugned judgment, we are upholding the conclusion of the Tribunal based on the "block

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

capital gain, which would be exigible to tax and for this reason, we say that there is no loss to Revenue either. 34. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that though we are not entirely agreeing with the reasoning of the Tribunal contained in the impugned judgment, we are upholding the conclusion of the Tribunal based on the "block

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

73), the Delhi High Court has held as under, at Para Nos. 10.9, 11 & 12 thereof- “10.9 Keeping the aforesaid rule in mind we are of the opinion that the word advance which appears in the company of the word loan could only mean such advance which carries with it an obligation of repayment. Trade advance which

SHASHIKANT BIRMAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2959/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Shashikant Birmal, ‘Suryoday’, Shri Navvinayak, Sahakari Sanshta, Kothrud, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aavpb4855F Vs.

section 50C at Rs.72,72,000/- to determine capital gain arising from sale in place of Rs.55 lacs as per sale deed dated 21.04.2005. Without prejudice 2 Shri Shashikant Birmal the AO erred in bifurcating consideration u/s 50C Rs.72,72,000/- at Rs.44,88,979/- for residential portion and Rs.27,83,021/- for non-residential portion of the subject property