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

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

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

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

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

gains of business or profession\"\n2. 20. The following conditions should concur in order that a particular item of expenditure may be deductible under this section:\n• The expenditure should have been incurred in the accounting year\n• It should not be in the nature of personal nature\n• It should have been laid out or expended wholly and exclusively

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

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

112 of the compilation, relevant para 9 at page 110), merely making an excess claim for deduction under Section 36(l)(viia) in the return of income cannot tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. B.2. The dis-allowance is based on Explanation 2 to Section 36(l)(viia) introduced with effect from AY 2014-15. This heins

RATNAGIRI.ITO1@INCOMETAX.GOV.IN, RATNAGIRI vs. MANGALA HARI INGALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed for Statistical Purpose

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer-1, Mangala Hari Ingale, Ratnagiri. V G-1604, Empire Square, Near S Auto Cluster Chinchwad East, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune – 411019. Pan: Aaipi0141G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.08.2023. The Revenue For A.Y.2018-19 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “I. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Accepting The Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated By Evidence & Which Had Not Stood The Test Of Enquiries In Assessment Proceedings. Ii. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Allowing The Ao To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Him As Per The Provisions U/S Mangala Hari Ingale [R]

Capital Gain u/s 112 of the Act on sale of immovable property. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.68,85,826/- made on account of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 of the Act. vi. The appellant prays that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

112. Let us take the instance of a notice issued on 1 May 2021 under the old\nregime for a relevant assessment year. Because of the legal fiction, the deemed\nshoe care notices will also come into effect from 1 April 2021. After accounting\nfor all the exclusions, the assessing officer will have sixty-one days (days between

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

capital gains amounting to INR 3,26,81,816 at an incorrect rate of 25% instead of 20% under section 112

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

112 Taxman 96 (Bombay) note that Hon’ble Court held that Assessing Officer cannot estimate undisclosed 39 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) income under Chapter XIVB on arbitrary basis. Para 8 of the order of Hon’ble Court reads as under : “8. In conclusion, we would also like to mention that Chapter XIV-B lays down a special

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

112 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case