ANAND DEVELOPERS,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass immediately, even though the consideration

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SANGLI CIRCLE,, SANGLI vs. ANAND DEVELOPERS, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, it has been held that, "sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part-promised. The true test is, what is the intention of the parties to the transaction. If the intention is that title should pass immediately, even though the consideration

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHAPUR vs. NATHMAL RUPCHAND JAIN, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

transferring the money through hawala to persons in Delhi also does not seem plausible. The cash was deposited in months of April and May while the purchase from M/s Rishabh Trading Company was done in October and moreover why would an assessee first show bogus sales and then to offset the same undertake bogus purchases and generate cash for making

KRISH WINES,JALGAON vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1,, JALGAON

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

transferred from the ITO, Ward\n2(2), Jalgaon to DCIT, Circle – 2, Jalgaon (now Circle – 1, Jalgaon) on 08.04.2019\nas per jurisdiction. Notice u/s 142(1) of the Act on 20.05.2019 along with\nquestionnaire asking the assessee to file certain details regarding the scrutiny\nassessment.\nSecond notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 31.10.2019\nrequesting the assessee

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

69A of the Income Tax Act.\n6.3 The Ld. AO alleged it to be penny stock and he claimed that\nthe trading in such stock was controlled by few operators and\nrise in prices of this stock was artificially created. He also gave\nfinding that he re-opened the case based on information\nreceived from Director of Income

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

69A of the Act is hereby confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are dismissed. 4. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. She vehemently argued referring to the paper book running into 144 pages and stated that the assessee has entered into the agreement for purchase of agricultural land from Shri Dipchand Kothari

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

69A 6. Addition on account of agricultural income Rs.1,49,910/- Total Rs.3,91,32,567/- 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. It is this order against which the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 5. In ground nos.1 to 6, the Revenue

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

transfer the shares internally among the promoters and is within the law. 5.2.5 As per the rules for valuation with regard to the Plant and machinery and other depreciable assets there are two values- one is book value as per books and other is WDV as per the Income Tax Act. In the present case the book value

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

prices of Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. Ld. AO also observed that assessee has purchased the Equity shares of M/s. Achal Investment Ltd. through offline mode on 12.11.2012. Further, there was no response from the side of assessee to the notice issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Ld. AO concluded that the long term capital gain shown

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

transfer of properties.” 31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that the capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability