ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

disallowed / reported the transactions where the provision of the sec. 43CA is applicable to the tune of Rs. 37,23,800/- but in the return of income the same amount has not been offered for taxation. As the assessee was duty bound to include the truly and correctly income in the original return of income, but the assessee

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

disallowed / reported the transactions where the provision of the sec. 43CA is applicable to the tune of Rs. 37,23,800/- but in the return of income the same amount has not been offered for taxation. As the assessee was duty bound to include the truly and correctly income in the original return of income, but the assessee

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

55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Assessing Officer cannot make the reference for valuation as on 01/04/1981. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in restricting the claim made under section 54B to the tune of Rs.74,400/- as against the Rs.1,08,55,000/- thereby reducing

LAXMAN MARUTI SHITOLE,,PUNE vs. ` INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowance so made of Rs.15,00,000/- is hereby confirmed.” From the above, it is evident that the assessee paid the sum to litigant in connection with earlier sale transaction of his land. If the same is not paid, the litigant is likely to cancel the sale transaction. Further, CIT(A) ignored the Shri Laxman M. Shitole & Shri Anil

ANIL MARUTI SHITOLE,,PUNE vs. ` INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

disallowance so made of Rs.15,00,000/- is hereby confirmed.” From the above, it is evident that the assessee paid the sum to litigant in connection with earlier sale transaction of his land. If the same is not paid, the litigant is likely to cancel the sale transaction. Further, CIT(A) ignored the Shri Laxman M. Shitole & Shri Anil