HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

rectification order under section 154 of the Act, dated 19.10.2023 wherein partial relief is granted and surcharge is levied at the rate of 15% on income of Rs. 18,63,72,224/- (viz. short-term capital gains u/s

DIVYADATTA DIGAMBER NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA LIMITED SATARA,KOREGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SATARA

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 651/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Divyadatta Digamber Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Moti Heights, Azaad Chowk, New St-Stand, Koregaon, Satara-415501 Pan: Aaeas1871L . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

rectification on standalone basis u/s 154 of the Act. 8.6 Coming to amenability of transcription error occurred while e- filing the return of income or e-processing the return by the Ld. CPC we are mindful to the decision of co-ordinate benches in ‘Shrikant Real Estates (P.) Ltd. Vs ITO’ [2012, 26 taxmann.com 265] where a clerical error occurred

ANU AGA FAMILY DISCRETIONARY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

rectification order under section 154 of the Act dated 07.08.20223, the Ld. AO/CPC computed surcharge @ 15% on (a) short term capital gains under section 111A and (b) dividend income. On the balance amount of 10,82,375/- comprising of short term capital gain (other than under section 111A) and interest income, the Ld. AO/CPC continued to levy surcharge

HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

rectification order under section 154 of\nthe Act, dated 07.08.2023 wherein partial relief is granted and surcharge is\nlevied at the rate of 15% on income of Rs.4,77,46,882/- on which\nmaximum surcharge is 15 per cent (viz. short-term capital gains u/s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

rectification order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

rectification order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing

BRIG. (RETD.) JITENDRA KUMAR NARANG,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD 11(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gain on sale of mutual funds were made. Subsequently, on 11.09.2017 the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 154 by making addition on account of investment in purchase of mutual fund of Rs.5,30,000/- to the income of the assessee thereby revising the income to Rs.10,94,290/- which was originally assessed at Rs.5,64,290/-. We further find

MAGARAJ MISHRIMAL RATHI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

rectification order U/s. 154 dated 18.03.2021, without giving any finding on the submission made by the Appellant. 5. The learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi has failed to appreciate and consider the submissions made by the Appellant without assigning any valid reasons and confirmed the addition inspite of the fact that the appellant has furnished complete details in respect

SUVARNA KIRAN CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

u/s 154 on 02.08.2022\nexplaining the arithmetical logic of Income disclosed under\nappropriate heads of Income. However in rectification order the\nIncome Tax Department has not correctly considered Income from\nBusiness & Profession which results in Income Tax Demand of Rs.\n1,14,10,750/-.\nThe appellant has further submitted that on analysis of the reasons\nfor differences and incorrect treatment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, PUNE vs. SHRI PADEMAKAR GOPAL BHIDE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & Dcit, Circle-2, Vs Padmakar Gopal Bhide, 1St Floor, „A‟ Wing, Pmt Pune Building, Shankar Seth Road, Swargate, Pune. Pan: Abbpb 7155 P Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 09.03.2023 For A.Y.2014-15 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

u/s. 154 of the Act be restored. Total tax effect Rs. 30,11,069/- 2. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessment proceedings in assessee‟s case for A.Y. 2014-15 were completed on 23/03/2021. Thereafter, the AO had issued notice u/sec. 154 of the Act on 07/03/2021 proposing to levy interest u/sec. 234C

SIDDHANT MACHINDRA MHASKE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

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

154 passed by the A.O. as the rectification order of an invalid reasst. is bad in law, the issue involved did not constitute mistake apparent from record and also because the enhancement of interest u/s 234A was not warranted. 5) The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. We take

SANKET KAILAS PAWAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Plot No.20, Sattyam Nagar, Aurangabad. Cidco No.7, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.232/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Rl-191, Krushnakunj Aurangabad. Banglow, G Block, Sambhaji Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 & 07.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Noida [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.232/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

gain made on such acquisition was exempt from income tax under section 10(37) of the IT Act. 4. The Ld AddI/JCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was a farmer not engaged in any business activity during the AY 2019-20 and the asset acquired was agricultural land and the Income Tax Return was prepared

SANKET KAILAS PAWAR,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Plot No.20, Sattyam Nagar, Aurangabad. Cidco No.7, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.232/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Rl-191, Krushnakunj Aurangabad. Banglow, G Block, Sambhaji Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 & 07.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Noida [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.232/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

gain made on such acquisition was exempt from income tax under section 10(37) of the IT Act. 4. The Ld AddI/JCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee was a farmer not engaged in any business activity during the AY 2019-20 and the asset acquired was agricultural land and the Income Tax Return was prepared

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

154 is not acceptable as filing of appeal and filing of rectification application are two separate legal processes and filing of rectification application cannot prevent appellant to file the appeal in time. The reasons stated by the appellant have been perused but are not found to be tenable as the appellant has failed to demonstrate sufficient cause or any other

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

capital gains on sale of land is shown in the IT'R of assessee and his son Mr. Amit Sasar in ratio of 1:1 and paid the tax liability due thereon." 2.1 Thereafter, intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre [(“AO”)/(“CPC”)] on 27.02.2023 wherein the Ld. AO/CPC considered

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

154\nof the Act which was pending before the Ld. AO at the time of appellant\nproceedings before him. He therefore directed the Ld. AO to dispose of the\nsaid rectification application after due verification thereby allowing these\ngrounds of appeal raised by the assessee for statistical purposes.\n5.\nDissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

rectification u/s 154 because as per section 139(5), if any person, having furnished a return under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4), discovers any omission or any wrong statement therein, he may furnish a revised return at any time before three months prior to the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment

SATARA ENGINEERING PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE, SATARA, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2450/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2024-25

capital asset on which no depreciation is allowable under the Act shall be computed at the rate of twenty-two per cent: Provided also that where the person fails to satisfy the conditions contained in sub-section (2) in any previous year, the option shall become invalid in respect of the assessment year relevant to that previous year and subsequent

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

u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. When the case called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. I therefore proceed to adjudicate the appeal with the assistance of ld. Departmental Representative. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual