AMEETSINGH AJITSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, 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.1705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 479, Eden Villa, Rasta Peth, Kasba Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aaqpr3148E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Riya Oswal Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 92,85,214/-Solely On The Ground That The Reinvestment Was Not Made In A Residential House.

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 92,85,214/-solely on the ground that the reinvestment was not made in a residential house. 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the appellant had invested the entire sale consideration in the property in strict

MR GANESH RAMBHAV PAKHE,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1097/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

4) of the 2 Ganesh Rambhau Pakhe Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called `the Act’). Thereafter, the assessee filed a revised return on 11-02-2016 declaring total income at Rs.95,21,060/-. In this return, the assessee declared long term capital gain and also claimed exemption under section 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) completed the assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the investment in the property purchased from spouse. That, accordingly, there could not be any reason to deny the Appellant's claim for exemption u/s 54F. In view of the aforesaid logic, the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made pertaining to disallowance of claim

ANIL HANUMANT CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Section 54F reads as under :- "Ownership Criteria: At the time of transferring the original asset, the taxpayer should not own more than one residential house (excluding the new one). The exemption is revoked if the taxpayer purchases any other residential house within two years or constructs one within three years of the transfer". 4 ITA No.406/PUN/2025

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

disallowance could have been made in respect of the above investment made by the appellant in view of the consistent view taken by Honorable Courts. 5. Without prejudice to ground no. 3 & 4, it is submitted that the investment made in construction of bungalow after the date of transfer of original asset may be allowed as a deduction u/s 54F

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

disallowed the same.  The conditions to be satisfied to claim exemption under section 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred is a long-term capital asset and hence there is a long term capital gain; iii) the asset has been transferred by an individual or a Hindu Undivided Family

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

54F & 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

54F & 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

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

54F & 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

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

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, 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

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

disallowing\ndeduction U/Sec. 54F of the Act without considering the true and\ncorrect facts of the case and without appreciating the contention of the\nappellant that the appellant has purchased the property which is\neligible for deduction U/Sec. 54F of the Act.\n4.\nThe appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of\nthe above grounds of appeal

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

54F of the Act were made. The appellant accepted both the additions and did not prefer appeal. GoA no. 4 is also taken for the fault of the tax-consultant in not applying for immunity u/s 270AA of the Act. The appellant's shifting of his liability over his tax-consultant is not accepted. A tax-consultant or counsel

DEEPAK HARI KOTALWAR HUF,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD1, NANDED

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

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

4 the AO disallowing the claim u/s.54F of the Act. It was further observed by the CIT(A) that the appellant ought to have invested the whole of the sale proceeds of Rs.35,04,000/- to be entitled to claim deduction u/s.54F of the Act, and therefore the disallowance made by the AO of Rs.31,64,393/- was upheld

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), 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.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act. The appellant prays that the deduction u/s 54F may please be allowed. 4) The appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend, alter, delete or raise any additional ground of appeal.” 3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and claims

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

disallowance of deduction u/s 54F of the IT. Act, 1961? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Hon‟ble CTI (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,20,00,000/- made on account of deemed dividend u/s Section 2(22)(e) of the I.T. Act, 1961? ITA No.1720/PUN/2025 [D] 3. Whether

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

54F of the Income Tax Act as the same was allowed to be capitalized by Income Tax Settlement Commission. 6. Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered submission of appellant that flats which were not in existence as on the date of transfer of Original Asset No.1 forms part of sales consideration under Joint Development Agreement and the same should

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

4 C.O.No. 11/PUN/2021 Ghanshyam M. Kachi further observe that the ld. CIT(A) in his order is absolutely silent as to how share of stamp duty expenses would be allowable while computing the capital gains. At the time of hearing also, ld.AR of the assessee could not justify such share of stamp duty expenses and neither could place on record

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SUDARSHAN ZUMBERLAL BAFNA, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

disallowance of assessee’s claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act. Referring to the copy of the order of the Tribunal, he submitted that section 263 order has since been dismissed by the Tribunal vide ITA No.1272/PUN/2017, order dated 13.11.2019 and therefore, the subsequent proceedings become infructuous. 3.1 Further, without prejudice to the above argument, the Ld. AR submitted