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”].

2(14) to provide that those equity shares, the sale of which invites payment of STT, will not be considered capital assets. Likewise, the Legislature could have provided in section 47, that the transfer of equity shares on w7hich STT has been paid will not be considered as a ‘transfer’ for the purposes of section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

119/- as dividend income from Mutual Fund. These investments were made out of the surplus funds. The Assessing Officer asked the AR to justify and explain as to how the interest/dividend income qualifies for deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. The AR in response to the letter replied that deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) is not applicable. Deduction

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

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

gains of subsequent years without having 8 years of limit. Further, we note that the CIT(A) directed the AO to verify record and determine the correct allowable unabsorbed depreciation pertaining to A.Ys. 1997-98 to 2000-01, 5 ITA No. 915/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2011-12 to allow the same to be carried forward for set off with income

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

119 ITR 867 with regard to applicability of Rule 46A, has held by mentioning facts as under: “For the assessment year 1976-77, the assessee filed a return in compliance with notice under section 139(2). His persistent defaults entailed an ex parte assessment under section 144 and the ITO included in the taxable income, as income from undisclosed sources

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, PANVEL vs. PRAMOD ARJUN THAKUR,, RAIGAD

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.860/Pun/2019 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gains and other sources. The return of income for the year under appeal was filed by the appellant on 31.03.2017, declaring therein total income of Rs.7,78,000/-. Addition of Rs.6,54,61,100/- was made by the Id AO by relying upon the provisions of section 56(2

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

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 (2

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 (2

GENDER LAB FOUNDATION,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.193/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :- Gender Lab Foundation, The Commissioner Of Flat No.2203-4, A Wing, Vs Income Tax, Tribeca Building, Hiranandani Exemption, Pune. Estate, G B Road, Chitalsar Manpada, B.O., Thane. Maharashtra – 400607. Pan: Aajcg4122B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 30/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune Under Section 80G Of The Act, Dated 15.12.2023. The Ld.Cit(E) Dismissed The Application Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Application Is Time Barred. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Ground(S) Of Appeal : “1. The Cit E, Failed To Appreciate That The Appellant, Gender Lab Gender Lab Foundation [A]

119(2)(b) to the CBDT pointing out the facts of the case and asking for both a condonation and / or clarification that Circular 6/2023 also be extended to cover Section 80G 9. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend, delete and/or withdraw any of the above grounds of appeal and also to submit additional documents and facts

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

119; or (d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision, prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. This amendment will take effect from 1st day of June, 2015.”Unquote 4.7 Thus, Finance Act, 2015 introduced a deeming fiction through explanation

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

POKHARNA EDUCATIONAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT (EXEMPTION), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

gains\n3b\n0\nс.\nOther sources\n3c\n9360082\nd.\nu/s 115BBF\n3d\n0\ne.\nu/s 115BBG\n3e\n0\n4a\nProfit or loss included in 1, which is referred to in 4a\nsection\n0\n44AD/44ADA/44AE/44B/44BB/44BBA\n/44BBB/44D/44DA/44DB/First Schedule of Income-\ntax Act (other than profit from life insurance business\nreferred to in section 115B)\ni\n44AD\n4i\n0\n6\nBalance

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

2 : 2.1. Without prejudice to the aforesaid ground, if it held that the income is chargeable under the head 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

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