TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make your submissions along with documentary evidences in support of your contention." 5. Assessee duly responded to the show cause notices and furnished the information about the purchase of residential properties

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

168\ntaxmann.com 169 (Karnataka), wherein it was held that the income-\ntax exemption provided under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is\nrestricted only to the compensation or awards made under the\nprovisions of the said Act itself. The Hon'ble Court observed that the\nwording of Section 96 \"made under this Act\" is explicit and\nunambiguous, and therefore only

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

168/-, the assessee also claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act at Rs.38,40,098/-, on account of investment in Mega Polis property. The Assessing Officer while completing assessment, noted that the assessee had not declared the sale consideration of Rs.2.55 crores in the original return of income filed and subsequently after the search, the declaration was made

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

168 of PB-II. All key clauses of these ruies were read out during the course of hearing today. It was submitted that, once a buyer buys goods on NSEL platform and pays for the same, NSEL starts holding the goods on behalf of such buyer. This entire mechanism has been elaborately explained in the order of Honorable Supreme court

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

168 taxmann.com 574 (Del)(20-11-2024)] has held that : (i) In Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) (and connected petitions), the Rajasthan High Court had interpreted the non obstante clause of Sections 153A and 153C to have an overriding effect on the legal provisions for assessment / reassessment including under Sections

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

property, business and profession and other sources. A search action u/s 132 was conducted in the card of the assessee on 02.05.2013 and accordingly a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

168 iii) Bajaj Housing Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT, 161 Taxmann.com 213 iv) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. vs. CIT, 109 Taxmann 66 v) PCIT vs. Clix Finance India P Ltd., 160 taxmann.com 357 vi) PCIT vs. SPPL Property Management (P) Ltd., 151 taxmann.com 103 vii) PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P Ltd., 398 ITR 08 viii) Nipro India Corporation

SHRI VINAY BADERA,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Vinay Badera Acit, Circle 3, Pune 303, Rohan Tapovan, Sb Road, Vs. Gokhale Nagar, Pune – 411016 Pan: Abjpb1324J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-03-2025 O R D E R

section 57(iii) of the Act, any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, is allowed as deduction against income shown as ‘Income from other sources’. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the details of deductions claimed u/s 57 along

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

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

house property\" of Rs.1,44,045/- and income from other\nsources of Rs.22,420/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2,05,753/-\nunder various sections of Chapter-VIA and also claimed tax relief of\nRs.6,57,914/- u/s 89(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee submitted that the management of Pfizer\nHealthcare India Private

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

property, business and profession and other sources. A search action u/s 132 was conducted in the card of the assessee on 02.05.2013 and accordingly a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

property, business and profession and other sources. A search action u/s 132 was conducted in the card of the assessee on 02.05.2013 and accordingly a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

property, business and profession and other sources. A search action u/s 132 was conducted in the card of the assessee on 02.05.2013 and accordingly a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

property, business and profession and other sources. A search action u/s 132 was conducted in the card of the assessee on 02.05.2013 and accordingly a notice u/s 153A was issued to the assessee in response to which the assessee filed his return of income on 28.02.2014 declaring total income of Rs.15,00,324/-. Thereafter, assessment under section