ACIT CIR-II AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI BAJAJ MURLIDHAR GIRDHARILAL, BEED

In the result, all the three appeals by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

68,06,250/-. The assessee declared Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land Rs.66,33,750/- (1/3rd share) after claiming exemption u/s. 54B Rs.53,45,000/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that the assessee is not eligible for claiming exemption u/s. 54B as no agricultural activities were carried out by the assessee

FARIZODDIN AHEMAD KOKANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 54B. The only condition is that the land sold should be used for agricultural purposes in two years, which does not mean that the land should be used for agricultural purposes for whole period of two years as viewed by the Assessing Officer. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decisions of Co-ordinate bench

MOHAMMAD RAFIQAHEMAD SAHEB KOKANI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

section 54B. The only condition is that the land sold should be used for agricultural purposes in two years, which does not mean that the land should be used for agricultural purposes for whole period of two years as viewed by the Assessing Officer. In this connection, he placed reliance on the decisions of Co-ordinate bench

BHASKAR RAGHUNATH SHELKE,,SHIRDI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.268/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mr. Bhaskar Raghunath Shelke, Biregaon Ban, Shelke Wasti, Appellant Shridi – 423109. Pan : Dddps3334G.

68,190/- at a higher amount of Rs. 51,37,354/- the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 has erred in confirming the same. 2. Without considering facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of law, the learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Ahmednagar has erred in contending that there is transfer of capital asset viz. agricultural land during

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

54B of the ITA, 1961. 4. The appellant craves leave to add /modify /delete /amend all /any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a non-resident Indian. He filed his return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 declaring total income of Rs.18,15,114/-. He has declared

BHAGWAN RAGHUNATH PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3),, PUNE

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

54B at Rs. 61,50,169/-. The net balance being Rs.1,57,239/-. In response to the notice u/s. 142(1) & 143(2) the Assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that, out of the total consideration on sale of agricultural land situated at Survey No.67 at Kharadi Pune on 06.08.2011, he and his wife Latabai pathare had received consideration