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.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains' were neither intrinsically nor congenitally of income character. 13. It is submitted that the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai (supra), on which the AO places reliance simply relied on Harprasad (supra) and decided the issue in the department’s favour. It neither considered the judgement of the Calcutta High Court

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

capital gain the same proportion as the cost of the new asset bears to the net consideration, shall not be charged under section 45: 4.2.1 On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the deduction is available only when the assessee has either constructed or purchased new property being a residential house within the prescribed time

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

Gains required thorough examination by the AO. However, prima facie it is seen that the AO erroneously allowed the "Cost of Improvement" of Rs.1.88 crore (indexed) without conducting proper verification. The assessee claimed "Cost of Improvement" on the Capital Asset i.e. Land over a span of ten years (FY 2009-10 to FY 2019-20), although no substantial documentary evidence

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

VYANKATRAO PANDURANG PATIL,LATUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1386/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, V Dy.Commissioner Of Mauli Chembers, Above Mauli S. Income Tax, Circle, Jewellers, Yashwantrao Chavan Latur. Complex, Main Road, Latur. Maharashtra – 413512. Pan: Abjpp6387P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 A.Y.2016-17, Dated 23.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

gain. 4. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.” 8. Section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as applicable for A.Y.2016-17 is reproduced here as under : (14) ["capital asset" means— (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession; (b) ……………………………….. but does not include— (i) …………………….. (ii) ……………………….. (iii) agricultural

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

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

Capital Gains, the computation mechanism fails, hence cannot be held taxable. 2.2. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred on facts by concluding that the due date for filing of return in the case of the Appellant was 31 July 2014. The appellant is subject to the provisions of section 44AB of the Act, hence

MANGESH A.TUPE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

119 to 131 of the paper book. The ld. AR submitted that admittedly, before the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not appear. The Assessing Officer treated the land to be ancestral and computed Long Term Capital Gain by invoking the provisions of section

PANDHARINATH MAHADEO OVHAL,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX WARD-14(3) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Pandharinath Mahadeo Ovhal, The Income Tax Officer, C23, S No.46 1+2+3+8+9, V Ward-14(3), Pune. Satya Vihar Bldg, Wanawqadi, S Pune – 411040. Pan: Aahpo 0334 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2012-13 Dated 23.03.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Off Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Also Erred In Not Adjudicating The Issue On Merit, This Action Is Being Violative Of Pandharinath Mahadeo Ovhal[A]

capital gain tax is to be charged same shall be restricted to actual amount received and since assesse has invested entire amount received in purchase of new house he is entitled to claim deduction under section 54 F of The IT Act, same may kindly be allowed.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE , , ICHALKRANJI vs. GHODAWAT ENERGY PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

capital gain and income from other sources has to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee without allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the act and deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.10,08,60,993/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE , , ICHALKRANJI vs. GHODAWAT ENERGY PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

capital gain and income from other sources has to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee without allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the act and deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.10,08,60,993/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKRANJI CIRCLE , , ICHALKRANJI vs. GHODAWAT ENERGY PVT.LTD,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2734, 2735 & 2736/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15

capital gain and income from other sources has to be computed and added to the total income of the assessee without allowing deduction u/s.80IA of the act and deduction u/s.80IA of the Act was restricted to Rs.10,08,60,993/-. A.Ys. 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2014-15 6. That before the Ld. CIT(Appeal), in the detailed written submissions filed

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

119 of the Act are certainly binding on the Department. In Commissioner of Customs v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. 2004 (165) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) the Supreme Court observed as under: 24 IT(SS)A Nos. 10 to 16/PUN/2023 & ITA No.516/PUN/2023 “Despite the categorical language of the clarification by the Constitution Bench, the issue was again sought to be raised before

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

119, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that. (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, • As is recorded

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH KRISHNARAO SAPTARSHI,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

capital gain:- i) V.S.M.R. Jagadish Chandran V. CIT (93 Taxmann 389-SC). ii) CIT V. Attili N. Rao (119 Taxmann 1030 - SC). iii) Smt S. Valliammai V. CIT (6 Taxmann 240 - Madras). iv) Ashok Soi V. CIT (144 Taxmann 383 Delhi). v) Smt Sita Nanda V. CIT (119 Taxmann 227 - Delhi). vi) Sri Kanniah Photo Studio (235 Taxmann 58 - Madras

BHANUDAS VITTHAL MHASURKAR,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

section 54B of the Act, the land must be used for agricultural purposes in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place. 8. Relying on the decisions of the Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Smt. G. Vijay Padma (2020) 119 taxmann.com 441 (Bangalore – Trib.), Jairam G Kimmane (2020) 119 taxmann.com

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