AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 3. From perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that common grievance of the assessees is against the levy of penalty u/s.271

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 3. From perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that common grievance of the assessees is against the levy of penalty u/s.271

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

condone the delay of 1918 days in filing of each of the instant appeals before this Tribunal and admit these appeals for adjudication. 3 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 3. From perusal of the grounds of appeal, we notice that common grievance of the assessees is against the levy of penalty u/s.271

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1727/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 Arun K. Narwade (HUF) 3. The ld. AR did not press Ground no.2 challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, which is hereby dismissed. Ground No.3 challenging the granting approval for re-assessment is connected with Ground No.2. The same is also consequently dismissed. 4. The assessee is aggrieved

SHRIKANT VISHWANATH GOGATE,,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(K/Z) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 54F of the Act could be given to the assessee when the transfer is of any capital asset other than the house property. The assessee has submitted that along with land, residential house has also been transferred i.e. „JAGDISH Bunglow‟ situated at CTS No.781, Final Plot No.128/1, TPS1, Shivajinagar. In the Development Agreement, there is reference of land

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

SHAMINDRA VILAS NAGARKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1038/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shamindra Vilas Nagarkar, Flat No.404, Ideal Square, Paud Road, Near Geetai Sankul, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aajpn0844L Vs.

condoning the day of 6 days when there was sufficient and reasonable cause for delay. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming denial of exemption under section 54F

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. GHANSHYAM M KACHI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryacit, Circle-6, Vs Ghanshyam M. Kachi, Pune. 1101, Raviwar Peth, Pune-411 002 Pan: Aqwpk 4253 H Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee C.O.No. 11/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2127/Pun/2017) (A.Y. 2014-15) Ghanshyam M. Kachi, Vs Acit, Circle-6, 1101, Raviwar Peth, Pune. Pune-411 002 Pan: Aqwpk 4253 H Applicant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

54F of the Act, which is therefore reversed and accordingly, the ground of appeal no.3 filed by the Revenue stands allowed. 9. As regards deduction u/sec. 54EC, the issue is covered by the decision of Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Coromandal Industries Limited in Tax Case Appeal No.443/2014, dated 16.12.2014, wherein

KUBER VASANTRAO KENJALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 28.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.61,72,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited category. Accordingly statutory notices

SANJAY NAMDEV TILEKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Row House No.6, Manjari Green, Manjari Stud Farm, Phase One, Pune- 412307. Pan : Ahwpt3174F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly With 281 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Along With Death Certificate Of His Wife, Praying For Condonation Of Delay Of 281 Days In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered

delay of 281 days is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, lower authorities erred in passing ex-parte order and erred in not deciding the issue on the merits of the case, this action

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

54F deduction claim of Rs.60,18,750/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing on perusal of not only assessment discussions but also from the learned CIT(A)’s findings that he has fails to prove that he has reinvested the corresponding capital gain derived

SHARAD RAMGONDA PATIL,SANGLI vs. I.T.O, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. However, there was no response from the side

INDRAVADAN H. SURATWALA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5 (1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 50-C capital gains in latter A.Y. 2007-08 followed by rejection of 54F deduction as well as cash deposits which stand added as unexplained u/s 68/69 of the Act in A.Y. 2006-07; respectively. 4. Mr. Jasnani could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities had initiated the impugned reopening(s) against the assessee

INDRAVADAN H. SURATWALA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5 (1),, PUNE

Appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

section 50-C capital gains in latter A.Y. 2007-08 followed by rejection of 54F deduction as well as cash deposits which stand added as unexplained u/s 68/69 of the Act in A.Y. 2006-07; respectively. 4. Mr. Jasnani could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities had initiated the impugned reopening(s) against the assessee