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

house property and not a plot. c) Further, the Appellant purchased a new residential property and not a plot of land and claimed deduction u/s 54 (not u/s 54F of Act). AO has wrongly observed that Appellant claimed deduction u/s 54F of Act and disallowed the same.  The conditions to be satisfied to claim exemption under section

SHRIKANT VISHWANATH GOGATE,,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(K/Z) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

house property and also erred in allowing the claim of exemption u/s 54 of the Act, whereas only the claim as admissible u/s 54F of the Act could be given to the assessee. Section

ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

54 EC as against the net consideration received from the sale of shares. The total net consideration received out of sale shares is Rs 11,42,85,600/-. These claims were made in the return of income filed during the said year on 31/08/2015. The case was subsequently selected in scrutiny via CASS for AY 2015-16 under Limited Scrutiny

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

house property in day- to-day business activity requirements. This admittedly is not the Revenue’s case that the assessee has been managing his business activities from any other place. We accordingly delete rent disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in these peculiar circumstances. 4. The assessee does not press for his third substantive ground of challenging section 41(1) - cession

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

property as being in the nature of a residential house, but not otherwise. This case and its logic can safely be utilized for understanding the meanings of' residential house' for the purposes of sections 54

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section 54. The Hon'ble HC held

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section 54. The Hon'ble HC held

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

section of 54, the requirement that purchase to be made or the construction to be put up by the assessee is in the name of the assessee is not expressly stated. We further find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kamal Wahal reported in 351 ITR 4 has also held that

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

54 and Section 55 of Transfer Property Act, 1882 and cannot be treated as valid transactions as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.15,13,95,000/- ignoring the fact that

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the State Bank of India as under:— (a) SBI Capital Gains Savings Bank Account Rs.2,00,000/- (b) SBI Capital Gains Deposit Scheme Rs . 37,00,000/- 3. Assessing officer undertook scrutiny

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the State Bank of India as under:— (a) SBI Capital Gains Savings Bank Account Rs.2,00,000/- (b) SBI Capital Gains Deposit Scheme Rs . 37,00,000/- 3. Assessing officer undertook scrutiny

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

property and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount which remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the State Bank of India as under:— (a) SBI Capital Gains Savings Bank Account Rs.2,00,000/- (b) SBI Capital Gains Deposit Scheme Rs . 37,00,000/- 3. Assessing officer undertook scrutiny

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

house and secondly, the new residential property was purchased before one year prior to the sale of original 5 asset. Admittedly, the sale consideration was paid prior to the one year before the sale of original asset. There is no bar under law to claim deduction simultaneously u/s,.54 and u/s.54F in respect of the same asset. The crucial fact

SHEELA DEEPAK GUNDECHA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house purchased by the assessee and only part of the construction has been completed and no final completion certificate was received from 6 Sheela Deepak Gundecha the local authority. Section 54 of the Act has direct bearing on the present issue and therefore the same is reproduced below for necessary guidance : “Profit on sale of property

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

property and claimed exemption\nunder section 54 of the Income-tax Act (\"the Act\" for short). Amount\nwhich remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the\nState Bank of India as under:—\n(a) SBI Capital Gains Savings Bank Account Rs.2,00,000/-\n(b) SBI Capital Gains Deposit Scheme Rs.37,00,000/-\n3. Assessing officer undertook scrutiny

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

property and claimed exemption\nunder section 54 of the Income-tax Act ("the Act" for short). Amount\nwhich remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the\nState Bank of India as under:—\n(a) SBI Capital Gains Savings Bank Account Rs.2,00,000/-\n(b) SBI Capital Gains Deposit Scheme Rs.37,00,000/-\n3. Assessing officer undertook scrutiny

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

property and claimed exemption\nunder section 54 of the Income-tax Act (\"the Act\" for short). Amount\nwhich remained unutilized was deposited by the petitioner with the\nState Bank of India as under:—\n(a) SBI Capital Gains Savings Bank Account Rs.2,00,000/-\n(b) SBI Capital Gains Deposit Scheme Rs.37,00,000/-\n3. Assessing officer undertook scrutiny

SMT BEENA SHAMMI CHAUDHARI,PUNE vs. ITO., WARD 6(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Beena Shammi Chaudhari Vs. Ito, Ward B/3-302, Silver Oak, Florien Estates, 6(4), Pune Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Adypc5109R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri V.L. Jain Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 16-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17-02-2022

house property for a sum of Rs.26 lakhs took place vide sale deed registered and stamp duty paid on 17.04.2008. The assessee‟s contention that cheques amounting to Rs.14 lakhs got dishonoured and out of the remaining amount of Rs.12 lakhs already received by the assessee, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs was returned and agreement to sell the property

ALLAN EMANUEL FERNANDES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

house then instead of capital gain being charged to income‐tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the provision made under the section which grants exemption from payment of capital gains as set out there under. Therefore, in the entire s. 54, the purchase

SONALI KIRAN SHIVARKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1881/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shiv Arkar, The Deputy L/H Of Late Kiran Sopanrao Vs Commissioner Of Income Shivarkar, A-204, Ganga Tax, Cirlce-7, Pune. Savera, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Aprps 3509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 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)-8, Pune, Dated 11.09.2019 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Law & Without Considering Facts & Submission Made, Claimed U/S 54F Amounting To Rs.24,72,272/- In Respect Of Investment In Second Residential House. The Appellant Prays That Deduction U/S 54F Be Allowed In Respect Of Second Residential House.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Original Return On 18/11/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,550/-. The Assessee Then Filed Revised Return On 27/03/2015 Declaring Total Income Of

property in that sense of the matter. Flats, apartments are completely based on co- ownership. (vii) Owing to all that have been stated supra, we conclude that the assessee is entitled to the benefit of Section 54-F of IT Act. ” Unquote. 6.1 In the case of Gumanmal Jain, it was an admitted facts that all the flats were