ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r.w.s. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had also received a letter dated 23.12.2016 from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central (Circle), Kolhapur (‘the ACIT, CC, Kolhapur’) passing on C.O. No.15/PUN/2023 information of receipt of on-money consideration of Rs.8

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

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

section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 r.w.s. 2(47) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had also received a letter dated 23.12.2016 from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central (Circle), Kolhapur (‘the ACIT, CC, Kolhapur’) passing on C.O. No.15/PUN/2023 information of receipt of on-money consideration of Rs.8

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI ARUN S. PATIL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 2(47)(iv) r.w.s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act indicate that gain on property is taxable in the year in which transaction were entered into even if the transfer of an immovable property is not effected or completed under the general law. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred into ignoring that any transaction into any manner which have

ARUN S. PATIL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 2(47)(iv) r.w.s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act indicate that gain on property is taxable in the year in which transaction were entered into even if the transfer of an immovable property is not effected or completed under the general law. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred into ignoring that any transaction into any manner which have

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

disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the appellant had not claimed the said expense in the return of income for the impugned year. Perusal of the bills and invoices shows that the pertained to the month of September and October 2010, whereas the impugned land and building had been sold in September 2009 itself. The appellant

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), 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 : 2016-17

section 54B of the Act, only agricultural land purchased after the date of transfer is allowed as deduction. He, therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the exemption claimed u/s 54B of the Act should not be disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer