DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 55A(a) of the Act is as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 6.7. Following the decision in the case of Pooja Prints (Supra), Hon'ble ITAT Pune decided on similar lines in the case of Anjali Bharat Kabra Vs ITO [2016] 75 taxmann.com 5. In this case, the assessee sold lands

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

Section 55A(a) of the Act is as existing during the period relevant to the Assessment Year 2006-07. 6.7. Following the decision in the case of Pooja Prints (Supra), Hon'ble ITAT Pune decided on similar lines in the case of Anjali Bharat Kabra Vs ITO [2016] 75 taxmann.com 5. In this case, the assessee sold lands

DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation is also given. There is no other relevant factor which has been left out by this office while arriving at the value of the said structure. The assessee's claim that the Purchaser has demolished the structure he found no value in the structure, cannot be accepted because we do not demolish the structure. So far as the value

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given