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 Gain. The only dispute was that whether against such gains, the assessee could claim deduction under section 54F of the Act on account of investment in new asset. In this regard, action of the CIT (A) in holding that the said income on sale of development rights was to be treated as adventure in the nature of trade/ business

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

capital gain of Rs.22,02,745/- in respect of sale of shares of PIL which were purchased for a paltry stun of Rs.75,197/- and sold for Rs.22,77,943/-. The AO on verification of the credentials of PIL and other attending circumstances observed that PIL was included in the list of penny stock companies in enquiries conducted

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

capital gain,\ndetails of trade order, trade name, security quantity etc were produced before the\nAssessing Officer as well as before him.\n\n28. So far as the written submissions filed by the Ld. DR are concerned, the Ld.\nCounsel for the assessee filed the following written submissions rebutting the\ncontention of the Ld. DR:\n\nSr. No.\n1\nPara

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

capital gain,\ndetails of trade order, trade name, security quantity etc were produced before the\nAssessing Officer as well as before him.\n\n22\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors\nCO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025\n28. So far as the written submissions filed by the Ld. DR are concerned, the Ld.\nCounsel for the assessee filed the following written submissions rebutting the\ncontention

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

capital gain,\ndetails of trade order, trade name, security quantity etc were produced before the\nAssessing Officer as well as before him.\n\n28. So far as the written submissions filed by the Ld. DR are concerned, the Ld.\nCounsel for the assessee filed the following written submissions rebutting the\ncontention of the Ld. DR:\n\nSr. No.\n1\nPara

M/S. CHAKRABARTY MEDICAL CENTRE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Chakrabarty Medical Centre, C-802, Palmdale, California Apartments, Nibm, Undri Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411060 …. Pan: Aabfc5809Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei

penalty in respect of the addition made by the A.O. on account of sale of property by holding that the assessee had concealed its income by not offering the capital gain

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain and the reason for reopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.), Mumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued income. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under: “6.3 I have considered the submissions filed by the appellant. The appellant is placing reliance

RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains of Rs.19,10,690/- thereby invoking section 2(47)(v) of the Act, ITA No.1133/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwant Shinde Vs. ITO (A) we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: “5. DECISION: I have carefully considered the matter. Ground 4 is general in nature, while ground

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

capital gain and the reason for\nreopening was recorded on the basis of information received from DDIT (Inv.),\nMumbai and the notice for reopening of assessment u/s 148 of the Act was issued\nfor the same transaction which was already shown by the assessee in his return of\nincome. The relevant observations of the Ld. CIT(A) read as under

CHANDRASHEKHAR BAGADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandrashekhar Bagade Ito, Ward 5(1), Pune F 5, Windmill Village, Vs. Opp Ambrosiya, Paud Road, Pune – 411021 Pan: Amxpb8229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

capital gains. However, it set aside the issue of exemption u/s 54F to CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal vide his order dt 08/07/2019. 5. AO had, in the meanwhile, levied penalty

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

capital gains from the transactions which she claimed as exempt from taxation u/s 10 clause (38) of the Act. This entire edifice was absolutely a colourable device to give the colour of genuineness of these transactions to which she was successful in bringing back her own unaccounted cash into her books without the need to pay any taxes

POPATLAL MOHANLAL CHORDIA,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on technicalities

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 781/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2008-09

penalty levied by the AO on account of capital gains amounting to Rs.56,63,568/-. The break-up is given

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)

capital gains earned during the subject year 8. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act, despite the Appellant filing its return of income within the prescribed due date. 9. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO