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)

4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue submitted that Assessee had not claimed deduction on Income from Other Sources and 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

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

Capital Gain to the total income of Rs. Nil returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal by observing as under : “6. Decision:- During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant

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

4. 1st ground is with respect to treating the income as business income as against it treatment by assessee as short term capital gains. 4.1. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had disclosed short term capital gains of Rs.38,23,839/- which were split into 2 categories namely, short term capital loss (--Rs.10918/-), the transactions

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

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

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.

73[Capital gain on transfer of land used for agricultural purposes not to be charged in certain cases. 7454B. 75[(1)] 76[Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises] from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

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

4. The only issue raised in the present appeal is in respect of computation of long term capital gains, if any, in the hands of assessee. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee filed return of income in response to notice under section 148 of the Act at ₹ 2,94,897/-. The Assessing Officer had received information

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, ICHALKARANJI vs. PARIKH SHANKARLAL KUNDANMAL,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeals of Revenue and the Cross Objections by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.733 To 736/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05 To 2006-07 & 2009-10

73,92,942/- of assessment year 2003-04 being brought forward to assessment year 2004-05 and held that there were no positive profits in the assessment year 2004-05 to be allowed as a deduction. Similarly, for the assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07, the Assessing Officer noted that the deduction under section 80IA as unabsorbed depreciation

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

4) is absolutely similar to Section 54G(2) of the Act. In reference thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fibre Boards (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore (2015) 62 taxmann.com 135 (SC) has held that “so long as the amount is utilized before the due date of filing return of income

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

4) is absolutely similar to Section 54G(2) of the Act. In reference thereto, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Fibre Boards (P.) Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Banglore (2015) 62 taxmann.com 135 (SC) has held that “so long as the amount is utilized before the due date of filing return of income