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

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 54 are as under: i) the asset transferred is a residential house; ii) the asset transferred

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

property" 11.2 In view of the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, I hold that the appellant is not eligible for any deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act as because he was already owing two residential houses on the date of the transfer. Since the conditions as laid down in Section 54F is not being fulfilled

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 jointly in the names of assessee’s wife and unmarried daughter. The ld. AR submitted that originally property was owned by his father in law and after his death in 2006, the property was inherited by Mrs. Fiona Allan Fernandas. The name of the assessee was also added as joint holder of the property at the time of transfer

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

3, the assessee has also referred to this query. Therefore, before taking a view, on this matter, opportunity was given to the appellant to explain its case. 8. Further, in the literal sense, even there is no enhancement. On sale of the Matrix building, the AO has assessed at Long Term Capital Gain

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

3, the assessee has also referred to this query. Therefore, before taking a view, on this matter, opportunity was given to the appellant to explain its case. 8. Further, in the literal sense, even there is no enhancement. On sale of the Matrix building, the AO has assessed at Long Term Capital Gain

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

House Property in the order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2009 of Income Tax Act. 3. Without prejudice the appellant pleads that License Fees Received Rs.47,52,000 was assessable under the head Profits & Gains of Business or profession of proprietary concern M/s. Malikram Builders. 4. The AO erred in disallowing claim for exemption of Rs.3,06,71,330 u/s 54F

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

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

sections 54 & 54F as well. 8. It is submitted before Your Honour that it is not in dispute that the property which was purchased by the appellant and claimed exemption U/sec. 54F is the bungalow along with land, which is house property as per municipal records and taxes have also been paid as residential property. It is further submitted that

RAJESH G. GARGATTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.262/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ………. अपीलाथ" / Shri Rajesh G. Gargatte, Row House No.5, Appellant Orchids, S.No.24/14, D.P. Road, Behind Medipoint Hospital, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. Pan : Aaxpg9886H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune. Respondent

3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act held that assessee was eligible for deduction u/s 54F for only one house in view of the fact that amendment to the Financial (No.2) Act, 2014 to 54F of the Act, the words “Constructed one residential house in India” was substituted for “Constructed a residential house”. He therefore held that in view

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

house and claimed the deduction u/s 54F or would have deposited the amount in bonds to claim deduction u/s 54EC, wherein the lock in period is of 3 years only. Instead on claiming exemption u/s 54F, I would have claim deduction u/s 54GB which says that the capital gain on transfer of property not be charged if the consideration

VARUN SUNOY SARASWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Varun Sunoy Saraswat, A/901, Crest Avenue, Behind Mahendra Showroom, Mumba Highway, Baner, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Bqkps1546L Vs.

property. The authorities below have denied the deduction under section 54F of the Act since the gift deed was not a registered document. 9. The question which arises is whether the assessee can claim the aforesaid deduction under section 54F of the Act against cost of construction of bungalow, where the plot of land was in the name of mother

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

3 Shrikant V. Gogate Rs.5,40,00,000/-. That since the Ld. CIT was of the opinion that ultimately what the assessee has transferred only the right of development and has not the house property, therefore, the Assessing Officer has erred in treating the sale of development right as sale of house property and also erred in allowing the claim

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

3 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 new property are coming entirely from the claimant of the deductions. 5.3. The AO has brushed aside the above contentions stating "The judgements quoted by the assessee are not applicable on the facts of the case. Moreover assesssee has failed to bring on record any binding judicial precedent of jurisdictional

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

3 ITA.No.645, 666 & CO.No.19/PUN./2024 new property are coming entirely from the claimant of the deductions. 5.3. The AO has brushed aside the above contentions stating "The judgements quoted by the assessee are not applicable on the facts of the case. Moreover assesssee has failed to bring on record any binding judicial precedent of jurisdictional

SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

3 ITA No.1783/PUN/2019, A.Y. 2014-15 in the case of CIT Vs. K. Ramachandra Rao reported in [2015] 56 taxmann.com 163 (Karnataka) and by referring to relevant paragraphs, he argued that sub-section (4) of section 54F of the Act is not attracted if the assessee invests the sale consideration derived from the transfer either in purchasing the property

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 within the period from 19/01/2006 to 18/01/2009 or he should have constructed the 4 house within a period of three years from the date of sale i.e. w.e.f. 19/01/2007 18/01/2010. However, there is nothing

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.

3 being inter-connected are considered together. 4.1. During the course of re-assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee had sold a land on 20.04.2010 to M/s. Nakoda Buildcon for a consideration of Rs.1,10,00,000/- and the amount received on sale of land was invested in purchase of four flats and accordingly a deduction of Rs.1

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

3. Before me, explaining the above extracted grounds, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there are two core issues for adjudication. They are (1) the allowability of deduction u/s 54B of the Act in respect of re-investment of Rs.3.25 lakh + Rs.3.25 lakh + Rs.6.90 lakh + Rs.18 lakh in non-agricultural land/residential house/agricultural land. It is the claim

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

house property was completed.” 3. Mr. Walimbe invited our attention to the CIT(A) detail discussion affirming the Section 54F