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

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

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

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

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

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

JAGANNATH KRISHNAJI DEORE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & G.D.Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2091/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13

section under which appellant has claimed) is disallowed and Rs.1,93,89,778/- is added back in the income of the appellant. Thus, the AO held that the land at Talegaon and Nigdi both were not agricultural lands. 5.6 The first ground of appeal is only on this aspect that both the lands were not considered as agricultural lands

KISHOR GANPAT KARANDE,,JALNA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, JALNA

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

54B of the Act and disallowance of improvement cost in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. I note that according to the AO, the assessee is an individual and an agriculturist. The Government of Maharashtra acquired the land belonging to the assessee admeasuring 1H 21R and paid compensation to the assessee. The AO opined that as per 7/12

CHHAYA VILAS DENGLE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 54B of the Act i.e. the assessee has not conducted any agricultural activities two years prior to the sale transaction of the land. We have examined 7/12 extracts vis-à-vis the judgment of Hon‟ble Supreme Court (supra) and find that the agricultural produce includes the trees grown on the A.Y. 2012-13 land which has some value

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

disallowance of exemption u/s 548 in respect of investment in agricultural land and all the conditions have been complied with (iv) The Id CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the appellant had made substantial payments towards consideration for purchase of the new agricultural land and possession was obtained in prescribed time thereby proving

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

section 54B to the tune of Rs.74,400/- as against the Rs.1,08,55,000/- thereby reducing the same by Rs.34,15,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in not granting the claim of Rs.23,50,034 made toward purchase of house

POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 7(3), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

sections, as detailed below, on the ground that the appellant failed to respond to the notices. The decision was made without considering the facts of the case or adjudicating the appeal on merits. Sr. No. Nature of Addition Amount 1 Disallowance of exemption claimed Rs. 3,60,35,153/- U/Sec.54B of the Act 2 Disallowance of exemption claimed

POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7 (3), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

sections, as detailed below, on the ground that the appellant failed to respond to the notices. The decision was made without considering the facts of the case or adjudicating the appeal on merits. Sr. No. Nature of Addition Amount 1 Disallowance of exemption claimed Rs. 3,60,35,153/- U/Sec.54B of the Act 2 Disallowance of exemption claimed

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 54F of the Act. The AO disallowed the balance consideration and brought to tax under the head capital gains on account of assessee’s failure to deposit the unutilized consideration for purchase of new flat in specified bank accounts in accordance with the scheme of Central Government as provided u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) though recorded

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal