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

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 111A, long-term capital gains u/s 112

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

capital gains under section 111A of the Act, the applicable surcharge shall be @ 15% and other income of the assessee including dividend income shall be subjected to MMR with surcharge @ 37% as per the provisions of section 167B r.w.s. 2(29C) of the Act. 7. We have perused the decision of the Special Bench of the Mumbai Tribunal

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

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

gain is subjected to a 'nil' or nominal rate of tax. The advantage for manipulative taxpayer is that he can launder such sale receipts through payment of no lax." ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) SEBI has recently barred more than 250 entities, including individuals and companies, from the securities market

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

112,506/-. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the denial of carry forward of long term capital loss in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. During the course of draft assessment proceedings, the assessee shown

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

112,506/-. Thus, ground No. 5 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 21. Ground No. 6 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the denial of carry forward of long term capital loss in the facts and circumstances of the case. 22. During the course of draft assessment proceedings, the assessee shown

SHRIRAM SAHADEV RAWOOL,SINDHUDURG vs. ITO, WARD-1, KUDAL, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Shriram Sahadev Rawool Ito, Ward – 1, Kudal At Post Parule, Near Vetoba Vs. Temple, Vengarle, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra – 416510 Pan: Ahmpr7876C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

capital gain at Rs.2,92,57,000/- and brought the same to tax as per provisions of section 112 of the Act. 5. In appeal

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

capital gains u/s 111A and dividend is 15%.\n3.\n9.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add to, withdraw or modify any of the\ngrounds of appeal at the time of hearing.”\nAlthough the assessee has raised several grounds of appeal, the only\ngrievance of the assessee pertains to whether, in the case of private\ndiscretionary trusts whose income is chargeable

RAMDAS PANDHARINATH KALE,(HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12 (4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 54F of the Act. The AO disallowed the balance consideration and brought to tax under the head capital gains on account of assessee’s failure to deposit the unutilized consideration for purchase of new flat in specified bank accounts in accordance with the scheme of Central Government as provided u/s. 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) though recorded

ADPR & ASSOCIATES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) has levied surcharge at the maximum rate of 37% on the entire amount of tax. On appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the intimation order of the Ld. AO/CPC for the reasons recorded in para 7.1 of his appellate order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us against

ADPR & ASSOCIATES,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 1(1) , NAHSIK

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

section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) has levied surcharge at the maximum rate of 37% on the entire amount of tax. On appeal, Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) upheld the intimation order of the Ld. AO/CPC for the reasons recorded in para 7.1 of his appellate order. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before us against

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

112/-. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. In this case, it is admitted fact that the addition made by AO did not survive after the order of ld.CIT(A). As per the computation of capital gain, there was no taxable capital gain. Therefore, assessee was not liable to file return

JAYA HIND INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

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

112. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. CIT-DR placed reliance on the decision of the ld. CIT(A). 7. We heard the rival submission and perused the material on record. The issue involved in the present appeal relates to whether the expenditure incurred on the cost of Gripper which is used in the robotic arms forming part

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

section 143(1)(a) the learned CPC does not have power to disallow the set-off of losses. 4. Merits of the case The appellant contends that, the learned AO ought to have granted a set-off of Rs. 35,95,270 being the remainder of the current year's capital loss u/s 112 against the long-term gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. M/S. RENAISSANCE CULTIVATION LLP,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1416/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Acit, Central Circle-2(1), Vs. M/S Renaissance Pune. Cultivation Llp, Pastakiya House, A/P Kamshet Maval, Pune- 410405 Pan : Aaofr7634K Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Assessee By Shri Neelesh Khandelwal : Date Of Hearing : 16.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Justified In Allowing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Appreciating The Entire Facts Of The Case.

gains arises on sale of land cannot be taxed under the head ‘business income’. 6. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us. 7. The ld. CIT-DR submitted that whether a particular land is agricultural or not is essential a question of fact which should be decided with reference

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,MANGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NEW PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

capital asset therefore profit or gain if any arising from its transfer is not liable to income tax and consequently the assessee is not liable to make payment of any advance tax. The assessee also raised legal grounds before the bench. 7. In this regard we find that under identical facts a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(5), RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

capital asset therefore profit or gain if any arising from its transfer is not liable to income tax and consequently the assessee is not liable to make payment of any advance tax. The assessee also raised legal grounds before the bench. 7. In this regard we find that under identical facts a coordinate bench of this Tribunal in the case

SUSHILA SUDHAKAR PINGALE,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sushila Sudhakar Pingale, V The Income Tax Officer, Pezari, Poynad Alibag, S Ward-3, Panvel. Raigad – 402109. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing. Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025

capital gains, after granting deduction for indexed cost of acquisition as per the provisions of section 48 and levying concessional tax rate as per section of 112