AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

revision u/s 263 cannot be done in his case. 06. On perusal of the assessment order, it is clear that the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny for verification of "Capital Gain

SANJAY AMRUTRAO SATAV (HUF),PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 12(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesses stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.200/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sanjay Amrutrao Satav Vs. Ito, Ward- 12(4), Pune. (Huf), Amrut Palace Bungalow, Gat No.12 Bhavadi Road Wagholi, Near Bhairavnath Mandir, Taluka Haveli, Pune- 412207. Pan : Aayhs1085F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Pooja Rander Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena Date Of Hearing : 29.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax- 4, Pune [‘The Pr.Cit’] Dated 31.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

revision order may pleas be annulled. 3. The learned Pr.CIT has grossly erred in holding that impugned Capital Gains had arisen on the date of conversion of the Capital gains and hence the deduction claimed by the appellant assessee u/s 54B was barred by limitation, by completely ignoring the provisions of Section

DNYANESHWAR PANDIT MAHAJAN,,JALGAON vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

revision on the ground of non-examination in respect of long term capital gain or the A.O. did not make necessary verification about the long term capital gain. Further it was brought to our 7 ITA No.1155/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2013-14 notice that the respondent revenue did not prefer an appeal against such order before the Hon’ble High Court

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

revision order u/s 263, is outside the scope of the present appeal arising against the asst, order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 which is impugned before Hon'ble Bench. Copy of the original Asst. Order u/s 143(3) dated 24.12.2017 is attached herewith as Annexure 6. 5] It is further clarified that the total cost of construction of the bunglow

SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2, , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1183/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sidharth Ratanlal Bafna, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-2, 96, Nayantara, Subhash Nashik. Chowk, Jalgaon-425001. Pan : Algpb5972R Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Nagpur (‘The Pcit’) Dated 08.06.2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Pr.Cit Has Grossly Erred In Exercising His Revisional Jurisdiction U/S 263 Of The I.T. Act 1961. The Impugned Revisional Order Passed By The Learned Pr.Cit Is Patently Illegal., Void Ab Initio, Bad In Law, Arbitrary, Perverse, Without Jurisdiction & Being Devoid Of Merits The Same May Please Be Deleted. 2. Since The Learned Pr.Cit Has Failed To Revise The Directions Given By The Learned J.C.I.T. Nashik To The Learned Assessing Officer In The Matter Of Framing The Impugned Assessment Order U/S 143[3] R.W.S.L53A

u/s 263 on the ground that : (i) The ld. PCIT cannot exercise the power of revision in respect of order passed by the Assessing Officer after taking approval of the Joint/Additional Commissioner of Income Tax. (ii) In the absence of any incriminating material suggesting that the appellant made a claim for exemption of bogus 5 capital gains

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI AVINASH KANTILAL JAIN,, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

capital gains on sale of shares was allowed by the Assessing Officer without due enquiry. Accordingly, the Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Nashik in exercise the power of revision vested under the provisions of section 263 of the Act with him, had set-aside the assessment order passed u/s

SMT. SANGEETA GANPATI JADHAV,PUNE vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Smt. Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav D-406, Neha Co-Op. Society, Sus, Pune-411045. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Aefpj8933A बनाम / V/S. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pune. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dhananjay Barve Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Agitated Against The Order Of Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Pr-Cit-2), Pune [For Short “Ccit”] Dt. 17/02/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of The Order Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By Asstt. Cit, Circle-4 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Vide Order Dt. 21/12/2017, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 17

revised and assessment was culminated u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at ₹67,58,100/- upon recomputation of long term capital gain arisen on transfer of land, and after allowing a claim of exemption u/s 54F thereagainst for ₹54,22,646/- for investment into new residential house. The same is not the subject matter of appeal

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

PRIYA KISHOR JAGTIANI,,NASHIK vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, NASHIK

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

capital gains’. Therefore, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 09.03.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice u/s 263 on 07.09.2016 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment

PRIYA KISHOR JAGTIANI,,NASHIK vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, NASHIK

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

capital gains’. Therefore, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 09.03.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice u/s 263 on 07.09.2016 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment

PRIYA KISHOR JAGTIANI,,NASHIK vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -1,, NASHIK

In the result, all the above three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

capital gains’. Therefore, the ld. PCIT formed an opinion that the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 dated 09.03.2015 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Accordingly, the ld. PCIT issued a show cause notice u/s 263 on 07.09.2016 calling upon the appellant to show cause as to why the assessment

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

revision by the Ld. PCIT is based on the internal audit objections for which a reply was also submitted by the assessee. He submitted that the reply filed to the audit objections has to be considered as part and parcel of record as per clause (b) of Explanation 1 to section 263 and merely on basis of audit objection, proceedings

SMT. MEENA DILIP KOTECHA vs. C.I.T.-(CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

capital gain from investment in shares, Rs.2,01,925/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ after claiming deduction of Rs.1,28,542/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

SMT. JYOTI ASHOK KOTECHA vs. C.I.T.-(CENTRAL), NAGPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

capital gain from investment in shares, Rs.2,01,925/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ after claiming deduction of Rs.1,28,542/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Nashik (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 28.03.2014 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A

UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

Revision of order that is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of revenue [Clause 56] The existing provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 263 of the Income-tax Act provides that if the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner considers that any order passed by the assessing officer is erroneous

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

Capital Gains‟. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee inadvertently in the original return of income had offered gain on sale of land as “Business Income”. In the revised return, the assessee rectified the mistake and offered income from sale of land under correct head of income. 6.1 The ld. AR submitted that the authorities below have erred in coming

LEKHAKOSH KARMACHARI SAHAKARI PATPEDHI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. PR. CIT, PUNE-4, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

revision u/s 263 of the Act. 8. As seen from the Balance Sheet, the assessee has received deposits amounting to Rs. 59,709/-, Paid up capital at Rs. 2,61,27,640/-, reserve fund at Rs. 81,32,297/- as on 31.03.2017. Against the same, the assessee has advanced Rs. 1,85.17,879/- only to its members. Thus, around

RAJKAMAL STONE METAL WORKS,AMBEGAON KHURD, DIST. PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

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

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

revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal. 8. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.62,70,540/-. Referring to the copy of the Balance Sheet placed at page 3 of the paper book

BANSILAL RAMNATH AGARWAL CHARITABLE TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

u/s 263 of the Act unless the order is erroneous. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under: “7. Moreover the CIT in exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act directed the Assessing Officer to redetermine the rebate allowable under Section 88E of the Act after holding that the same needs more careful examination