PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

55A and A.Y. 2006-07. Whereas, in present case reference was made under sec 142A for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be held to be bad in law and be quashed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The assessees three appeals on the other hand plead the following

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

55A and A.Y. 2006-07. Whereas, in present case reference was made under sec 142A for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The appellant prays that the order of Ld. CIT(A) be held to be bad in law and be quashed and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The assessees three appeals on the other hand plead the following

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.16.35/- per sq. ft. as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

NITIN NARAYAN SHEWALE , LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. CHANDRABHAGA E. SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (1),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.16.35/- per sq. ft. as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

SMT. ASHA NARAYAN SHEWALE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11 (2),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1105/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.16.35/- per sq. ft. as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

HEMANT SUDAM TUPE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD - 1 (3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.163.50/- per sq. meter as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

UTTAM SADHU TUPE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1108/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05

price as the full value of consideration and the fair market value of the property as on 01-04-1981 at Rs.163.50/- per sq. meter as the unindexed cost of acquisition. The Assessing Officer (AO) tweaked both the components in the computation of capital gain. He observed that the stamp value of the land in question was more than

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

55A of ITA, 1961 and has further erred in assigning incorrect reasoning while dismissing this ground which incorrect and hence, bad-in-law. 10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT-Appeal has erred in law and on facts, in impliedly sustaining the action of Ld. AO of rejecting the valuation report given