VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Capital Gains to Business income without complying with the principles of natural justice and without giving any opportunity of hearing

M/S. VARDHAN NUTRITIONS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

natural justice. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred in facts and in law while denying the appellant's claim of set off of current year's business loss of Rs.15,265/- against Short Term Capital Gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

natural justice which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has examined\nthoroughly and deleted the addition for such violation. We, therefore, uphold the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also.\n\n63. Even otherwise also, we find during the 153A assessment proceedings the\nAssessing Officer had specifically asked regarding the exempt long term capital\ngain to which

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Justice Dr.Arijit Pasayat (Retd.), acting as Chairman and Vice Chairman of the 11 member Special Investigation Team (SIT), in their third SIT report. The relevant details of their observation are as under: Misuse of exemption on long term capital gains tax for money laundering (reference page 82-84 of the third SIT report) This issue was deliberated by SIT during

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

natural justice which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has examined\nthoroughly and deleted the addition for such violation. We, therefore, uphold the\norder of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC on this issue also.\n\n63. Even otherwise also, we find during the 153A assessment proceedings the\nAssessing Officer had specifically asked regarding the exempt long term capital\ngain to which

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

natural justice. The Assessing Officer is directed to compute disallowable interest after examining availability of funds with the assessee. In the result, subject to the above directions, the ground Nos. 1 and 2 raised in appeal by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 7. The Year of Taxability of Capital Gains

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain on sale of shares on basis of statement of entry operators recorded on various dates in some other proceedings not connected with assessee and no opportunity to cross- examine so-called entry providers was given to assessee thereby violating principles of natural justice

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains' were neither intrinsically nor congenitally of income character. 13. It is submitted that the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai (supra), on which the AO places reliance simply relied on Harprasad (supra) and decided the issue in the department’s favour. It neither considered the judgement of the Calcutta High Court

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

nature, the same are dismissed. 15. Grounds of appeal No.1 to 6 relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of Rs.1,02,13,881/-. 16. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) confirming

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

natural justice by not granting cross-examination. 26. Referring to various other decision filed in the paper book compilation, he submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the instant case has failed to grasp the factual and legal matrix of the case and erred in allowing the long term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

natural justice by not granting cross-examination. 26. Referring to various other decision filed in the paper book compilation, he submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the instant case has failed to grasp the factual and legal matrix of the case and erred in allowing the long term capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

natural justice by not granting cross-examination. 26. Referring to various other decision filed in the paper book compilation, he submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the instant case has failed to grasp the factual and legal matrix of the case and erred in allowing the long term capital gain

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

nature, the same are\ndismissed.\nGrounds of appeal No.1 to 6 relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) upholding\nthe action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the claim of exemption u/s 10(38)\nof Rs.1,02,13,881/-.\nThe Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld.\nCIT(A) confirming the addition made

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM.OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE, AKURDI PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1158/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1330/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. Advik Hi Tech Pvt. Ltd., Gat No.357, Plot No.99, Village- Kharabwadi, Tal.- Khed, Chakan- 410501. Pan : Aacca3106E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah & Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya Revenue By : Shri Amol Khairnar Date Of Hearing : 21.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: These Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Order Dated 16.10.2023 Passed By Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Respectively.

gain as per rule 115 5 ITA No.1158/PUN/2023 [A] ITA No.1330/PUN/2023 [R] 4.2 On without prejudice basis, The Ld AO and Ld CIT(A) ought not to have been taxed the amount as income which was contingent in the nature as on the last date of the Balance Sheet. 5. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

natural justice because of\nwhich the assessee was adversely affected\nCIT vs. Mukesh Ratilal Marolia (Bombay High Court)\nINCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 456 OF 200 7 7th September\n2011\nLong-term capital gains

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

natural justice. 3.3 The NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in carrying out adjustments to the computation of book profits under section 115JB of the Act in the computation sheet annexed to the impugned order, despite the absence of any such adjustments in the impugned order leading to the adjustment being bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. Section 115JB

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

natural justice. Accordingly, third part of the ground No. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose. 13. In the result, ground No.1 raised in appeal by assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. II. CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS – GROUND NOs. 2 and 3 14. Ground No.2 raised in appeal by assessee relates to disallowance of short term capital loss

CHHAYA VILAS DENGLE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

capital gain on sale of agricultural land at Gat No. 55/1B, Chunchale, Dist. Nasik. The ld. A.O has dealt with this issue at para 16 where he states that the assessee has claimed cost of improvement at Rs. 7,31,847/- which includes land levelling, compound, fencing, etc. Since no details have been filed for verification of the said expenditure