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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

property were invested in a vacant plot and purchase 5 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 of a residential house in the sole name of his wife. AO denied the exemption. The HC observed that Section 54F

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

properties amounting to Rs.55,02,100/- and Rs.50,00,000/- The provision of section 54F is as under: 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of art assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential

MAHADEV DASU JADHAV,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

property is 19/01/2007 and 22/01/2007 respectively. Thus, as per the provision of section 54F, to avail the exemption, the assessee was required to purchase the house

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

house other than the new asset. Apart from the above no other conditions or restrictions have been prescribed for allowing or disallowing the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. Thus, the relationship between the buyer and seller of the property is immaterial for allowing the exemption claimed by the assessee. Further, there is no explicit restriction in section

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

property. jointly and claimed deduction u/s 54F of the Act. 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

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.

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

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

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

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 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 (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. s PAN: ASIPK 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 17/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner

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 of Rs. 25,90,875/-. Hence, same is to be disallowed. More than one house property is in your ownership which is evident from the data available on system, as also established vide your reply dated 02/09/2023, wherein in reply to the details of house property, you have accepted to own two flats

RAJESH BALRAM SINGH ,PUNE vs. ACIT , PUNE

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

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

property inherited by the entire family and not individually owned by the appellant. 2. The learned AO erred in law in not recognizing that the land was held for more than the statutory period and therefore any gain if computed is long term capital gain and eligible for indexation and exemption under section 54F since the proceeds were invested

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

54F of Rs. 31,64,393/- 2. The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought to have considered the following: i. Reinvestment in new residential house of Rs. 31,64,393/- ii. Deposited into eligible capital gain account scheme of Rs.30,00,000/- 2 3. The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought to have relied on fact that this

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

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

property as well as the housing project has not commenced. As regards the claim of exemption u/s 54EC amounting to Rs.50,00,000/-, the AO disallowed the claim for exemption u/sec.54EC in respect of second installment of Rs.50,00,000/- made on 27.08.2014 by holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/sec. 54EC only to the extent of Rs.50

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54F @Rs.2,05,78,694/- Which is investment in\nresidential house, is rejected because Transaction leading to Capital\nGain itself is rejected and is treated as business income.\"\nAppellant prays for declaring claim of Long Term Capital Gain & u/s\n54F is valid and allowed, And declare that order is Bad in Law, being\nwithout application of mind and violative

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

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

property was on a higher side and hence, the above addition made u/s 50C without referring the matter to the DVO was not sustainable in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.42,38,018 claimed u/s 54F in respect of long term capital gain on the ground that the appellant had made investment

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.

section 2(14) of the IT Act, accordingly Capital Gain cannot be calculated. Alternatively, it was also submitted before the Bench that sale proceeds/long term capital gain in any case was invested in residential building 8 wherein an amount of Rs.32,05,250/- was invested by the assessee. Accordingly, it was claimed that deduction u/s 54F is also allowable