KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

68,322/-” which we would adjudicate separately in this order. 3. These cases were heard together. Since facts and issues being common, these cases are being disposed of vide this consolidated order. We would first adjudicate whether the assessees are eligible for deduction u/s.54F of the Act. For this purpose, we would take up ITA No.1345/PUN/2017 for assessment year

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F deduction claim of Rs.60,18,750/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing on perusal of not only assessment discussions but also from the learned CIT(A)’s findings that he has fails to prove that he has reinvested the corresponding capital

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 does not restrict exemption merely because the property is situated in an agricultural zone, nor does it exclude a farmhouse from the ambit of a residential house. 6. The disallowance so sustained is contrary to the settled principles of interpretation of beneficial provisions under Chapter IV of the Income-tax Act and deserves to be deleted

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

54F of the Act and deals with all the three such issues i.e. (i) allowability of the Society transfer fee of Rs.54,38,898/-; (ii) Advocate fee of Rs.2,68,500/- and (iii) Improvement expenses incurred on house of Rs.2,02,574/- for the purpose of section

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

54F of\nthe Income Tax Act, 1961 Thus, I am satisfied that the income to the\ntune of Rs.19,71,726/-escaped assessment within the meaning of\nexplanation 2(c) to section 147\"\n4.1 Thus, it can observed that there was an assessment order\nu/s.143(3) of the Act, for A.Y.2010-11. The Proviso to Section 147\nis reproduced

RAJENDRA SUPADU JADHAV,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 54 of Indian Stamp Act, 1899 does not require the person who has purchased a stamp paper, to use it within six months. Therefore, we note that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly held that there is no provision in the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 prescribes any expiry date for use of a stamp paper, it is only

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

NITTEN SHRIKANT CHOUGULE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

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

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

section 54F is to be allowed. However, assessing officer has added total consideration of Rs. 36.00 lakhs as unexplained credit. In the assessment order, assessing officer has said that assessee has concealed the facts that the plot was purchased out of his withdrawals and savings and he did not show either the plot of land or the long term

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JAYANT DATTATRAYA BHALERAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

section 54 is available in respect of „a residential house‟. Various Courts have interpreted the expression „a residential house‟ to include within its fold two adjacent flats joined together or a complete building comprising of different residential units. The benefit of deduction u/s. 54 cannot be extended to two residential units/houses located at two different locations. In such circumstances

ABHIJIT ASHOK BHALERAO,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

section 54 is available in respect of „a residential house‟. Various Courts have interpreted the expression „a residential house‟ to include within its fold two adjacent flats joined together or a complete building comprising of different residential units. The benefit of deduction u/s. 54 cannot be extended to two residential units/houses located at two different locations. In such circumstances

ASHOK DATTATRAYA BHALERAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

section 54 is available in respect of „a residential house‟. Various Courts have interpreted the expression „a residential house‟ to include within its fold two adjacent flats joined together or a complete building comprising of different residential units. The benefit of deduction u/s. 54 cannot be extended to two residential units/houses located at two different locations. In such circumstances

BHARAT KANTILAL CHANGEDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

54F of the Act. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and a partner in the partnership firm M/s. Milan Plastic Industry. He derives income from share in the partnership firm, income from capital gain and income from other sources. The case of the assessee was reopened