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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

54B. 7 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 399 (MAD HC) - The assessee, sold a house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

54B. 7 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 CIT v. V. Natarajan [2006] 154 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 399 (MAD HC) - The assessee, sold a house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BODKE,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Section 54B as they were in force for assessment year 2010-11, following conditions should have been satisfied for claiming benefit of deduction u/s. 54B: i. The agricultural land is transferred by any individual. ii. The agricultural land has been used by the individual or his parents for agricultural purpose during two years immediately preceding the date of transfer

SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.3, Oscar Pride, Date V Ward-3, Ahmednagar. Colony, Behind Atharva S Mangal Karyalaya, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Afapr 3796 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2023 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)-2, Pune Dated 22.01.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane [A]

section 54B, it should have been given a liberal interpretation so as to allow the benefit u/s 54B in respect of the amount actually invested towards purchase of the impugned agricultural land within the stipulated time limit. 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the A.O. has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54B of 2 Shri

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 and added to the total income of the assessee. 4. In response to the query raised by the Assessing Officer

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

house subsequent to such transfer through agreement to sell. In the case of ‘TR Ardvinda Reddy’ (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court while interpreting the word 'purchase' referred to in section 54(1) of the Act held that the ordinary meaning of the word 'Purchase as buying for price or equivalent of price by payment in kind or adjustment towards

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

house property. Out of 22,70,000/-, rent received for the FY 2019-20 is Rs 7,70,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs 15,00,000/- is in reference with the arrears of rent received pertaining to the previous year for a period of 6 months viz-a-viz 2,50,000/- per month from October

BHIMA DADA KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

House Property, whereas the assessee has relied on the following judgments: i) Laxmi Narayan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 89 taxmann.com 334 ( Rajasthan) ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 170 taxman 160 ( Punjab & Haryana) iii) Jagpal Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 186 Taxman 26 ( Delhi) (Mag.) The aforesaid judgments exclusively deals with the exemption u/s.54B

BALU VITTHAL KHARATE,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

House Property, whereas the assessee has relied on the following judgments: i) Laxmi Narayan Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, (2018) 89 taxmann.com 334 ( Rajasthan) ii) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Gurnam Singh (2008) 170 taxman 160 ( Punjab & Haryana) iii) Jagpal Singh Vs. Income Tax Officer (2010) 186 Taxman 26 ( Delhi) (Mag.) The aforesaid judgments exclusively deals with the exemption u/s.54B

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

property shall be purchased in the name of the assessee; it merely says that the assessee should have purchased/constructed "a residential house". 8. This Court in the decision cited alone also noticed the judgment of the Madras High Court (supra) and agreed with the same, observing that though the Madras case was decided in relation to Section

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

houses on the land of the assessee and the assessee in lieu of this JV agreement will get 34% of construction area. The terms and conditions of the agreement clearly show that the assessee has transferred the land to the developers for development purpose and the joint venture agreement is also a registered agreement. He noted that the assessee

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 54B as there were applicable to the assessment year under appeal, the assessee being HUF was not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54B of the Act. We do not find any infirmity in the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in denying the benefit of exemption u/s. 54B to the assessee. Accordingly, ground No. 2 raised

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

house property in support of claim u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) having found the said information not before the AO, sought remand report. The AO furnished remand report. According to the AO relating to this issue u/s. 54B of the Act held that the assessee purchased agricultural land to an extent of Rs.72,21,240/- on individual

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

KEDAR ARVIND SARASWATE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property and capital gain and other sources. During the year under consideration, the assessee has declared income from capital gains, on which he claimed the deduction u/s.54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by investing the amount of capital gain by purchasing agricultural land. The Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s.143

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

54B, 54EC, 54EE, 54F, 54G, 54GA, 54GB etc. (Non-business ITR)” 3. On perusal of the IT return, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has declared Long term capital gain of Rs.18,87,563/- by claiming the deduction u/s 2 54F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), details of which are as under

KALA ARVIND JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

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

House Property Purchased as 50% as against, in the Ratio of Investment by Mrs. Kala Jain & Mr. Shanki Jain, in term of Sec. 45 of Transfer of Property Act.) Appellant prays for deduction as claimed. 2 ITA No.389/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 4. Assessee denies Liability to Interest u/s 234A, B and 234 C. Appellant prays for deletion of the Same

MUZAFFER MAHMOOD KHAN,,AURANGABAD vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property at Rs.70,00,000/- which is 1346% above market price of Rs.4,84,000/- 5. In reply, it was explained that the developer/builder M/s. Golden Dreams Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. executed Deed of Assignment (Sale Deed) on 3 ITA No.895/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 31-07-2014 in favour of assessee and the said date is to be considered as date