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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed.\n19. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of\nPCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the\nHon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed\nexemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

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

reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 19. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Smt. Krishna Devi (2021) 431 ITR 361 (Del), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has held that where assessee claimed exemption under section 10(38

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature. There are various reasons for coming to this conclusion which we enumerate

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

38. When we examine the insertion of proviso in Section 113 of the Act, keeping in view the aforesaid principles, our irresistible conclusion is that the intention of the legislature was to make it prospective in nature. This proviso cannot be treated as declaratory/statutory or curative in nature. There are various reasons for coming to this conclusion which we enumerate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

sections": [ "132", "153A", "143(3)", "153B", "147", "148", "68", "10(38)", "69C", "151" ], "issues": "Whether the reassessment proceedings were validly

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

10. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,61,00,000/- made on account of unsecured loan

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

section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No. 5 and 6 succeed.\n\n10. Since

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

section\n115BBE. Based on the facts, circumstances and legal issues brought out in the\nforegoing paragraphs, I allow the claim that the income in question is a bonafide\nLTCG arising from the sale of M/s. PFL Infotech Ltd. shares, which is exempt from\nincome-tax u/s.10(38) of the Act. Therefore, Ground No. 5 and 6 succeed.\n\n10. Since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. THE JAWAHARLAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,, RAIGAD

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed

JAWAHAR LAL NEHRU PORT TRUST,NAVI MUMBAI vs. ACIT PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

38. We find the Assessing Officer in the set aside order passed on 22.12.2011 again denied the exemption u/s 11 of the Act on the same ground that the assessee has not claimed the exemption in the return of income and that the audit report required for claiming exemption has not been filed within the time prescribed