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

96,621/- earning\nLong Term capital gain of Rs.7,68,24,174/-. This is an extraordinary profit earned\nin a short span of 2-3 years. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, the\nassessee has merely stated that he was doing this on the advice of broker and\nmarket sentiment.\n\n18. Referring to the movement of shares price

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”].

section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc., in respect of which allowances are provided for." This observation clarifies that in case of composite and indivisible business having taxable and non-taxable income, expenditure like rent, taxes, salaries, interest etc are to be apportioned. Rule 8D(2)(iii) stipulates that 0.5% of average investment will be disallowed

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

96 of the RFCTLARR act shall also not be taxable under the provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961, even if there is no specific provision of exemption or such compensation in the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 6.12 Section 10(37) of the Income Tax Act has been introduced to provide specific exemption to the capital gains

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

capital gain is taxable in assessment year 2011-12 and not in assessment year 2010-11. According to the Ld. AR , the registered deed dated 18.09.2009 is void as it is against the spirit of section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, Govt. of Maharashtra. Per contra, the view of the Assessing Officer that sale transactions entered into

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

capital gains shall be taxable.\nSection 96 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 provides exemption from\nincome tax and stamp duty levied on any acquisition covered under\nthe Act, except for persons referred to in section

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

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

96,621/- earning Long Term capital gain of Rs.7,68,24,174/-. This is an extraordinary profit earned in a short span of 2-3 years. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has merely stated that he was doing this on the advice of broker and market sentiment. 18. Referring to the movement of shares price

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

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

96,621/- earning Long Term capital gain of Rs.7,68,24,174/-. This is an extraordinary profit earned in a short span of 2-3 years. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has merely stated that he was doing this on the advice of broker and market sentiment. 18. Referring to the movement of shares price

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

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

96,621/- earning Long Term capital gain of Rs.7,68,24,174/-. This is an extraordinary profit earned in a short span of 2-3 years. On being questioned by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has merely stated that he was doing this on the advice of broker and market sentiment. 18. Referring to the movement of shares price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , NASHIK vs. SMT. PRIYA K. JAGTIYANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHOR C. JAGTIYANI, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. Smt. Priya K. Jagtiyani L/H Of Late Kishor Chelaram Jagtiyani Office No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shalimar Chowk, Shivaji Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422001 Pan: Adepj7743C

96,077/- on account of section 50C. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik was correct in holding the transactions of the assessee as business transactions when the assessee himself had offered the same as Capital Gain

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)

96,737 offered in the return of income. 3.2 The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard in response to the adjustments of book profits under section 115JB of the Act during the assessment proceedings and transfer pricing proceedings, thus violating the principles of natural justice. 3.3 The NFAC / Ld.AO has erred

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify the genuineness of the donations, a survey u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on six premises

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

capital gain 7 income but CPC while processing the return did not allow set-off of this brought forward loss of Rs.27,78,028/-, which resulted in additional demand of income tax of Rs.9,96,750/-. In first appeal proceedings, ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by referring to section

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

gain tax as it is situated beyond 8 km from the Raipur Municipal Corporation. 02. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the argument of the Ld.AR that the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) does not fall in definition of Municipality as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act was on the strength of judgment

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

gain tax as it is situated beyond 8 km from the Raipur Municipal Corporation. 02. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the argument of the Ld.AR that the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) does not fall in definition of Municipality as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act was on the strength of judgment

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

gain tax as it is situated beyond 8 km from the Raipur Municipal Corporation. 02. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the argument of the Ld.AR that the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) does not fall in definition of Municipality as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act was on the strength of judgment

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"

gains chargeable to tax. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the above transaction of sale of equity shares was sham and not genuine. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated relevant facts include that the Assessee is a Non-resident and filed return