PRABHAKAR MANJAJI THAKRE vs. PRINCIPOAL C.I.T.-1, NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year : 2011-12

Capital Gain. In order to give complete justice to the assessee the order of the CIT-Nagpur be set aside with proper directions In the matter. “ That at the time of hearing the ld. .A.R for the assessee further raised 3. following additional ground of appeal and for which the ld. D.R has no objection for the same and accordingly

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

capital gain income of Rs.10.74 crores. He however, directed the\nAssessing Officer to delete the penalty on addition of Rs.79 lakhs declared as\nbusiness income of M/s. JKG Developers.\n7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal\nbefore the Tribunal by raising the following grounds:\n1.\nThe learned CIT(A), Pune-11 erred

SUSHMA PRAMOD NIMHAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

capital gain tax. The fact that the TDS of 1% i.e. Rs.1,76,750/- has been deducted by the purchaser

SAMEER SATISH SATPUTE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, (IT) WARD 4, PUNE , B.O. BHAWAN, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2933/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Sameer Satish Satpute, Ito, (It) Ward 4, Pune 39, Rakshak Society, Aundh, Pune-411027 Vs. Pan : Asops4608L अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 25-02-2026 Date Of 10-04-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-13 [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Non- Resident Individual. During Fy 2021-22 Relevant To Ay 2022-23 Under Consideration, The Taxable Income Of The Assessee In India Comprised Of : (I) Rental Income From House Property In Pune; (Ii) Capital Gains From Stocks & Mutual Funds; (Iii) Dividend Income; (Iv) Fixed Deposits & (V) Nro Account Interest & Pass Through Income From Two Funds. For Ay 2022- 23, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income U/S 139(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) On 30.07.2022 Claiming Refund Of Rs.3,62,090/-. The Return Of The Assessee Was Processed By The Cpc, Bengaluru U/S 143(1) Of The Act Vide Intimation Order Dated 06.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cpc Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.5,37,30,540/- & Raised A Tax Demand Of Rs.35,68,200/-. On Going Through The Intimation, The Assessee Noticed That Though Gross Total Income Was Accepted, Income Adopted As Chargeable At Special Rate Was Incorrect. As Per The Order Of 2

capital gains from stocks and mutual funds; (iii) dividend income; (iv) fixed deposits and (v) NRO account interest and Pass Through Income from two funds. For AY 2022- 23, the assessee filed his return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) on 30.07.2022 claiming refund of Rs.3,62,090/-. The return of the assessee

INDRAJEET SURESH MAGAR,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.755/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Indrajeet Suresh Magar, Ito, Ward-2(1), Kolhapur. 100, Saroj Niwas, Ruikar Vs. Colony, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aiapm7745G अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Farrukh Mohammad Munir Mulla Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-09-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.07.2024 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay Of 172 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation That The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Both The Sides, We Condone The Delay Of 172 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal. 3. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Incorrect Assessment Year: The Sale Of The Property On 12.04.2018 Should Be Taxable In Ay 2019-20, But It Has Been Incorrectly Assessed In Ay 2018- 19 By The Assessing Officer. 2. Proportional Taxation: The Assessee'S Ownership Is Only 50% & Hence The Capital Gain Should Be Taxed Proportionately. The Assessing Officer Has Failed To Account For This.

capital gain – ((maximum amount not chargeable to tax i.e. 2,50,000 – interest income)) * 20%. The Assessing Officer has used an incorrect formula. 5. TDS

ANITA JAYANT OSWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.769/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Anita Jayant Oswal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Banglow No.1, Kumar Elite, Lane No.4, 110, Koregaon Park, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaapo3272A Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Naresh Kumar : Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 12.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 13, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2018 For The Assessment Years 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Appellant Respectfully Submits That The Appellant May Please Be Allowed To Take The Following Grounds Of Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-13, Pune In Appeal No Cit(A)-13/16-17/593 Dated 15/02/2018 For A.Y. 2014-15. (1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ld Ao In Rejecting The Claim Of Rs 31,79,890 Out Of The Total Claim Of Rs 1,24,71,110 Made U/S 54F Of The It Act-1961. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Amend Or Delete Any Or All Of The Above Mentioned Grounds Of Appeal.”

capital gains worked out to Rs.1,24,71,110/- and the same consideration was invested in the residential apartment which is exempt u/s 54 of the Act. The Assessing Officer had denied the exemption u/s 54 on the ground that the same was not claimed in the return of income placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme

FARHEEZ ERUCH AGA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

capital gain of Rs.12,06,52,000/-. We find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the assessee could not substantiate with any satisfactory explanation regarding the payment of such commission. A perusal of 7 the outcome of notices issued u/s 133(6) of the Act shows the following result which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

capital loss of the amalgamating company, which the AO denied by relying on section 72A of the Act. 10. Section 72A with the heading: “Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger etc.,” defines the term `accumulated loss’ under sub-section (7) to mean: `so much of the loss

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

capital loss of the amalgamating company, which the AO denied by relying on section 72A of the Act. 10. Section 72A with the heading: “Provisions relating to carry forward and set off of accumulated loss and unabsorbed depreciation allowance in amalgamation or demerger etc.,” defines the term `accumulated loss’ under sub-section (7) to mean: `so much of the loss

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Gains\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that\nthese provisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

MANIKRAO AMRUTRAO SATAV,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSINER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-12, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.391/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Manikrao Amrutrao Satav, At Post Wagholi, Tal.Haveli, Nr. Jain College, Wagholi – 412207. Pan: Banps2490G . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

capital gain, however echoing the findings of Ld. AO. has confirmed the addition made u/s 69A of the Act. 2.3 Still aggrieved by the aforestated addition made u/s 69A of the Act, the appellate assessee set-up the present appeal with following grounds alleging the very jurisdiction of Ld. AO as extra-territorial in the absence of prior approval from

NANASAHEB BHAGAWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

TDS deducted and credited to his account as reflected in Form 26AS amounting to Rs.13,00,000/-. However, the long term capital 2 ITA No.722/PUN/2025, AY 2022-23 gain

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

TDS was already deducted which was appearing in Form 26AS, secondly no capital gain was arising on sale of immovable

NARARSHABH SHARMA,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 7(3), PUNE, AAYAKAR SADAN PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

capital gains at Rs. 12,62,869/-; and income from other sources at Rs. 94,744/- and after claiming deduction u/s. 80TTA, the total income is worked out to Rs. 17,56,800/- and TDS

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS of Rs 80,000/- appeared in 26AS statement of appellant for the year. The AO noticed that no return of income has been filed by appellant for the year despite having Income from capital gain

SANTOSH SHANKAR GUJAR,LAXMI NAGAR, THERGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

Capital Gains. 10) Exemption u/s 54F shall be allowed on Rs. 93,00,000/- being appropriated as per provisions of law against Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received partly on 20/09/2016 towards sale of land. 11) The appellant had to pay compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/- on late payment to other parties as per court order due to delayed

SANTOSH SHANKAR GUJAR,NEAR VITTHAL RUKMINI MANDIR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE, AKURDI, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1654 & 2038/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2013-14 Santosh Shankar Gujar, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(3), Pune. H/No.246, Shiv Parvati Bunglow, Laxmi Nagar, Thergaon- 411033. Pan : Alnpg9944K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mrs. Vibha D. Gulabani Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 05.06.2024 & 29.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.1654/Pun/2024 For A.Y. 2014-15 For Adjudication.

Capital Gains. 10) Exemption u/s 54F shall be allowed on Rs. 93,00,000/- being appropriated as per provisions of law against Rs. 1,00,00,000/- received partly on 20/09/2016 towards sale of land. 11) The appellant had to pay compensation of Rs. 38,00,000/- on late payment to other parties as per court order due to delayed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

capital gain from sale of TDR as exempt\nfrom tax u/s.96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and\nTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement\nAct, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).\n2. The brief facts of the case is that during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the Respondent's\ncapital account had increased by Rs.6