SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.3, Oscar Pride, Date V Ward-3, Ahmednagar. Colony, Behind Atharva S Mangal Karyalaya, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Afapr 3796 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2023 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)-2, Pune Dated 22.01.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane [A]

54B in respect of the investment of Rs. 1,64,98,000/- made by the assessee towards purchase of the said land vide registered agreement dated 13.04.2016 without appreciating that the benefit of section 5413 was available in respect of any land purchased for being used for agricultural purposes and hence, the said disallowance

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ SATYANARAYAN GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowing benefit of exemption u/s. 54B to the assessees by Assessing Officer is that the land was not used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the land was sold. The land was sold by the assessees on 29-09- 2007. Thus, the period that has to be considered for ascertaining whether

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowing benefit of exemption u/s. 54B to the assessees by Assessing Officer is that the land was not used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the land was sold. The land was sold by the assessees on 29-09- 2007. Thus, the period that has to be considered for ascertaining whether

ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ JUGALKISHOR GIRDHARILAL,, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

disallowing benefit of exemption u/s. 54B to the assessees by Assessing Officer is that the land was not used for agricultural purpose in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the land was sold. The land was sold by the assessees on 29-09- 2007. Thus, the period that has to be considered for ascertaining whether

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

VYANKATRAO PANDURANG PATIL,LATUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1386/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, V Dy.Commissioner Of Mauli Chembers, Above Mauli S. Income Tax, Circle, Jewellers, Yashwantrao Chavan Latur. Complex, Main Road, Latur. Maharashtra – 413512. Pan: Abjpp6387P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 23.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54B. For the detailed reasons discussed by the AO in para 5 of the assessment

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

disallowed the claim of capital gains and brought the amounts of Rs.42,73,364/- 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

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

disallowed assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54B and 54F on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions as envisaged under the aforesaid respective sections

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 Act. He, therefore, issued a show cause notice asking the assessee to explain as to why the deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act should not be rejected. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee the Assessing Officer disallowed

MOHAMMAD RAFIQAHEMAD SAHEB KOKANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowing the claim for deduction of amount u/s 54B of the Act. 5. The factual matrix of the case is as under: During the previous year relevant to the present assessment year, the appellant had sold the agricultural land situated at Gat No.276- others on 29.06.2011 and was sold on 13.04.2013 and offered capital gains after claiming deduction u/s 54B

FARIZODDIN AHEMAD KOKANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowing the claim for deduction of amount u/s 54B of the Act. 5. The factual matrix of the case is as under: During the previous year relevant to the present assessment year, the appellant had sold the agricultural land situated at Gat No.276- others on 29.06.2011 and was sold on 13.04.2013 and offered capital gains after claiming deduction u/s 54B

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

54B of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction from the sale consideration of Rs.48 lakhs and restricted the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.5,44,184/- on account of re-invested in his residential house. In fact, the reinvestment claimed in the names of both the sons, wife

DNYANESHWAR PANDHARINATH TALEKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.877/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

Disallowance of cost of acquisition & cost of transfer of land 4. The Ld. AO has not allowed the cost of acquisition and cost of transfer claimed by the assessee. 2 Dnyaneshwar Pandharinath Talekar III. Grounds related to not considered the provisions of the Act. 5. The Ld. AO has not properly applied the provisions of section 56 of the Income

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

Section 263 cannot be invoked in the case of the assessee. However, the contention of the assessee is not acceptable as the matter for which the assessee firstly filed appeal before CIT (A) and subsequently filed application under DTVSVS-2024 are completely different subject matter. The subject matter of appeal with CIT(A) is against the disallowance u/s 54B

SHRI AMIT ASHOK MUTHA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

disallowance of exemption u/s. 54B, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee had sold three parcels of agricultural land and had earned Long Term Capital Gains of Rs.25,22,427/-. Admittedly, the assessee or his parents did not perform any agricultural activities on the land as there was no source of irrigation. 3 ITA No. 1380/PUN/2011

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

54B of the Act in the income tax return at ₹63,80,243/-, whether such mistake is liable to be visited by penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court

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

54B of the Act in the income tax return at ₹63,80,243/-, whether such mistake is liable to be visited by penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court

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

54B of the Act in the income tax return at ₹63,80,243/-, whether such mistake is liable to be visited by penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court