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

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

delay is condoned.\nSubmission of ld.AR :\n2.\nLd.AR for the assessee submitted that CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the submission of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted Affidavit of the assessee.\n3\nITA No.540/PUN/2025 [A]\n2.1 Ld.AR pleaded that the Notice u/s.148 dated 13/04/2022 and the order is bad in Law.Ld.AR relied on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

capital gain and (iii) Rs.75,896/- on account of interest income. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal was filed with a delay of 755 days. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC did not condone

PRASAD DATTATRYA THAKAR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14,, PUNE

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

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

condoning the delay of 40 days in filing the appeal before him. He submitted that the delay was caused due to medical emergencies which were beyond the control of the assessee. He contended that before the Ld. CIT(A) complete Capital Gain

SANDHYA SHRIKANT KADAM,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Sandhya Shrikant Kadam Ito, Ward-1(5), Vidya Nagar East, Aurangabad Vs. Near Ganga Narayan Hospital, Barshi Road, Beed – 431122 Pan: Cgxpk1065L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha Department By : Shri Gaurav K Singh, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026

delay. It has been mentioned in the condonation 2 application that the assessee is a house wife and has no regular source of income for which she did not file her return of income u/s 139(1) of the of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee’s father had got allotment of flat

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

Gain on Rs. 2,63,83,209/- in her return of income filed for A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the assessee has also not brought on record whether he/she has fulfilled the conditions as laid down u/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b). The land in question is a capital asset within the meaning of section

SUJIT VITTHAL SHINDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 11(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.100/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2021-22

condone the delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). 7. So far as merits of the case are concerned, we observe that the appellant has shown income under the head “Income from House property” at Rs.4,90,255/-, Income from Capital Gain

SHARAD RAMGONDA PATIL,SANGLI vs. I.T.O, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

Capital Gains without allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 on account of acquisition of a new asset out of sale consideration in absence of not producing the documentary evidence in this regard for not providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The lower authorities be directed to allowing the deduction u/s.54F

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

gain on sale of Agricultural Land has been wrongly computed at the time of filing the return as it is not a capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. However, ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.01.2022 rejected the Rectification application holding that “as the issue for which the assessee has filed rectification application

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

RAMSING HIMMATSING RAJPUT,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

capital gain. 6.1 The AO in the assessment order noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property at Rs. 800000/- whose guideline value was Rs. 2225000/- for the stamp duty purposes. The AO issued the notices but no compliance was made so the AO added the entire stamp duty consideration as the income of the assessee. The appellant during

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

condone the delay of 60 days in filing this appeal and proceed for adjudication of the appeal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,74,48,078made by the A.O by holding that the income arising on compulsory acquisition of land held as stock in trade

ANURADHA ASHOK SATBHAI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

condoning the delay of 214 days in filing of the appeal before him. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and had filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs.65,05,317/-. The case of the assessee was reopened on the ground that the assessee has sold an immovable property

KISHORE KASHINATH KOLI,PANVEL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

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

capital gain and Rs.11,27,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Since the assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 125 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal by not condoning

GAURAV RAJA PATHAK,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE1(1), 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 loss u/s 112 against the long-term gains from the sale of residential House Property) thereby increasing the returned income by Rs. 35,95,270/-. 3 2. Non-Condonation of the Delay

HEMANTKUMAR GAJANAN LAD,KALAMBOLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2765/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Hemantkumar Gajanan Lad, Vs. Ito, Ward-5, Panvel. 703, Krushidhan Chs, Sector 3, Kalamboli- 410218. Pan : Abjpl6243N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajinkya M. Vaishampayan Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 02.06.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 04.06.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income on 31.01.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,30,840/- for the year under consideration. A notice u/s 148 was issued on 27.03.2017 as it was found that the assessee along with

ANIL HANUMANT CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) PUNE, PUNE

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

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

condoned the delay in submitting ITR-V and both the returns are valid returns. 4) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the final appeal order without taking into consideration the point of dispute (i.e. difference between ready reckoner value of the property and stamp duty paid on the apparent consideration) or referring the case back to the file