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

long term 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

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

long term 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

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

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

long term capital gain income declared by the assessee during the course of survey is concerned, we find the Assessing Officer levied the penalty on the ground that during the course of survey it was noticed that the assessee has converted the land in question which was a capital asset into stock in trade in financial year

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

Long Term Asset.\n8\nITA No.540/PUN/2025 [A]\n5.\nThe Assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal). The ld.CIT(A) has reproduced the submission of the assessee which we are reproducing here as under :\n“1 On March 31, 2022, the Income-tax Officer, Ward 13(2), Pune (Jurisdictional Assessing Officer or JAO) issued a notice under section

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

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

long term 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

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

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

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Long Term Capital Gain. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked the provision of section 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence to mis- reporting of income. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that assessee has 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting and are liable

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.

long-term capital gain should be calculated as 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

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

TDS’. On the interplay between the Hon’ble Apex Court judgments in Ghanshyam (supra) & Bikram Singh (supra), the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in para 4 found the: `issue to be squarely covered by the larger Bench judgment 11 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. of the Apex court’ in Bikram Singh (supra). Then it noted in para

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

ARATHARAKKAL PUTHUKKUDIYIL MOHAMMAD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1293/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

TDS of Rs.1,69,734/- u/s.194L of the Act. Therefore, treating the same as concealed income, a notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued for taxing the same. Assessee filed written submissions. Thereafter, notices u/s.143(2) and 142(1) were issued on 18-03-2014. A show cause notice was also issued to the assessee on 13-03-2015. However

PUNDLIK TUKARAM CHOWGULE,,PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

TDS by the Society from the contract amount of Rs.4.5 crores. The assessee was therefore asked to prove the genuineness of the transaction. AO on the basis of the perusal of the documents and the enquiries noted that although there was no encroachment on the land as evident from the agreement, the Society agreed to pay Rs.4.5 crores for clearing

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PUNDALIK TUKARAM CHOWGULE,, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

TDS by the Society from the contract amount of Rs.4.5 crores. The assessee was therefore asked to prove the genuineness of the transaction. AO on the basis of the perusal of the documents and the enquiries noted that although there was no encroachment on the land as evident from the agreement, the Society agreed to pay Rs.4.5 crores for clearing

RAJENDRA GANPAT JAGTAP,PUNE vs. ITO WARD(8)(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS-194I) 2,97,71,698/- 2.1. The Assessing Officer, therefore, reopened the assessment by recording reasons as per the provisions of sec.147 and notice u/sec.148 was issued to the assessee on 19.04.2022. The assessee, in response to the same, filed return of income on 02.03.2024 declaring total income at Rs.17,54,860/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/sec.147

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

long term assignment. All the expats were on the pay rolls of assessee, but they continued to get their salary from Deere & Co., which then debited the salary cost of deputed employees to the assessee company. These employees were covered by Secondment Agreement entered into between Deere & Co. and assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the decision

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

long term assignment. All the expats were on the pay rolls of assessee, but they continued to get their salary from Deere & Co., which then debited the salary cost of deputed employees to the assessee company. These employees were covered by Secondment Agreement entered into between Deere & Co. and assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the decision

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

long term assignment. All the expats were on the pay rolls of assessee, but they continued to get their salary from Deere & Co., which then debited the salary cost of deputed employees to the assessee company. These employees were covered by Secondment Agreement entered into between Deere & Co. and assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the decision

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

long term assignment. All the expats were on the pay rolls of assessee, but they continued to get their salary from Deere & Co., which then debited the salary cost of deputed employees to the assessee company. These employees were covered by Secondment Agreement entered into between Deere & Co. and assessee. The CIT(A) relied on the decision