PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

gains shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing 5 as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts namely:- (i) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer (ii) The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. The assessee

BHARATNAGAR BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ABIL BUILDCON LLP),PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.284/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 Bharatnagar Buildcon LLP 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed its return declaring total income at Rs.78,29,61,960/-. The return was selected for Limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). After certain notices and compliance

INDUBAI DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains. 6. The case file reveals that there was delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal. On perusal of the grounds of appeal which are argumentative in nature, it is Assessee’s submission that the assessee is an old lady aged 73 years and is stated to be suffering from serious illness because of which delay

DASHRATH DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

capital gains. 6. The case file reveals that there was delay of 65 days in filing the present appeal. On perusal of the grounds of appeal which are argumentative in nature, it is Assessee’s submission that the assessee is an old lady aged 73 years and is stated to be suffering from serious illness because of which delay

RAVINDRA JOMA BHAGAT,,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal by assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 503 days in filing of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 3. The facts germane to the issue in appeal as emanating from records are; a survey u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) was carried out in the case

NANDA BAJIRAO KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

BAJIRAO RAMCHANDRA KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

GORAKH NARAYAN KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

VIJAYA SANJAY BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

SOMNATH BAJIRAO KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

REVATI GORAKH KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

LALITA ANIL KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

ANIL NARAYAN KUTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals of the respective assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl.

capital gains. 4. Before us, at the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that all the grounds raised in all the eight appeals are required to be remanded to the Income Tax Authorities. The assessee also filed the “additional evidences” in this regard. The assessee prayed for admission of the said additional evidences after condoning the delay

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

capital gains as on the date of conversion coming to 01.04.2010 whereas the correct corresponding statutory provision applicable as in the instant case is section 142A(1) only. That being the case, we conclude that the CIT(A) has erred in treating the impugned section 142A(1) reference as not maintainable by drawing analogy from amended proviso to section

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

capital gains as on the date of conversion coming to 01.04.2010 whereas the correct corresponding statutory provision applicable as in the instant case is section 142A(1) only. That being the case, we conclude that the CIT(A) has erred in treating the impugned section 142A(1) reference as not maintainable by drawing analogy from amended proviso to section

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

capital gains as on the date of conversion coming to 01.04.2010 whereas the correct corresponding statutory provision applicable as in the instant case is section 142A(1) only. That being the case, we conclude that the CIT(A) has erred in treating the impugned section 142A(1) reference as not maintainable by drawing analogy from amended proviso to section

DASHRATH KONDIBA 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

capital gains as on the date of conversion coming to 01.04.2010 whereas the correct corresponding statutory provision applicable as in the instant case is section 142A(1) only. That being the case, we conclude that the CIT(A) has erred in treating the impugned section 142A(1) reference as not maintainable by drawing analogy from amended proviso to section

KARIMKHAN SHAHNOORKHAN PATEL,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 278 days in filing of appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 3 ITA No. 2272/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 3. The brief facts of case as emanating from records are : The assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28-07-2009 declaring total income of Rs.1

APPASAHEB BBAURAO LONKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.888/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar 562/2, Aaryavart Society, Shivajinagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. Pan: Aagpl9688R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 4(4) Pune

delay of 417 days in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal is condoned. 3 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar 4. The only issue raised in the present appeal is in respect of computation of long term capital gains