DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain and not the speculation activities. (8) CIT Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 140 (Guj.HC) In this case, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, the head notes of the said decision reads as under – “Speculative transaction — Speculative loss—Forward contract, cancellation of—AO made disallowance on account of loss ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain and not the speculation activities. (8) CIT Vs. Panchmahal Steel Ltd. (2013) 215 Taxman 140 (Guj.HC) In this case, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee, the head notes of the said decision reads as under – “Speculative transaction — Speculative loss—Forward contract, cancellation of—AO made disallowance on account of loss ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), 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 : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 45(2) is inconsequential. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 23.12.2014 and the following chart disclosing the calculation of correct capital gain on sale of flats: 11 Particulars FY 16-17 AY 17-18 (a) Sale Consideration 3,67,25,561 (b) Total FMV as on date

PRADEEP KISANLAL BOOB,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.189/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2019-20

140/- and the second was a disallowance of the claim of set off of brought forward business loss against the short term capital gain from sale of depreciable business assets at Rs.94,03,288/-. Income computed at Rs.1,27,21,129/-. 3. Against the said disallowances, assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to succeed. Now the assessee

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.

section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, with effect from 01.04.2005. The shares on which this LTCG is shown are usually the penny stocks whose prices can be easily manipulated by ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) few unscrupulous brokers in connivance with entry operators, to provide the beneficiaries with

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

140/- comprising of addition of Rs.12,890/- income as per ITR and Rs.2,59,24,250/- addition on account of long term capital gain. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) challenging the addition of Rs.2,59,24,250/- as long term capital gain arising in the hands of the assessee in the relevant

MARUTI NIVRUTTI BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

140/- and calculated the long term capital gain for 1/4th share of the assessee adopting the amount of sale consideration as per the provisions of section

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

140/- levied by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 04.05.2018. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under :- “4.3 I have carefully perused the penalty order and the submission of the appellant as above. I find the penalty order that the main contentions of the AO for levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) were

SACHIN RAMESH PAWAR,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 8(2), SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1753/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

section 2(47) of the Act, no capital rain could arise in the hands of assessee as no consideration has been passed. He also referred to certain decisions mentioned in the case law paper book from pages 1 to 140. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR vehemently argued supporting the detailed finding of the AO and again asserted

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

gains. In the instant case of the appellant, the impugned property was purchased by the appellant for Rs.3,50,00,000/- which is at arm's length price and the appellant had 5 actually paid the consideration through banking channel. Thus, the AO is not justified in holding the investment made by the appellant as a circular transaction

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

140) and the assessee’s case is squarely covered by the said decision. 3. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 4. The appellant craves, leave to add, amend, alter or delete

SUNDARARAMAN JAYARAMAN IYER,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1390/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

140/- and claiming exemption of long term capital gain of Rs.21,19,859/- arising on sale of shares of M/s. Anuh Pharma Ltd. However, the appellant had not complied with notices issued u/s.142(1) or 143(2). In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 25.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act inferred that the transaction of sale

KALYANCHAND MANAKCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-. This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded

KAMLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-. This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded

MANGLESH KALYANCHAND LALWANI, HUF,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gain of Rs.3,18,796/- and interest on enhanced compensation of Rs.25,637/-. This reassessment was completed on the basis of calculation of compensation of land as determined by the Mumbai High Court at Rs.53/- per Sq. Mtr. Now, as per the information gathered, the Supreme Court vide order dated 25-03-2010, has enhanced the compensation awarded

ANIL BANSILAL LODHA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital gain was to be taxed u/s. 112A of the Act, particularly when the exemption u/s. 10(38) was withdrawn from the next assessment year and the provisions of section 112A were inserted from next assessment year. 4. On the basis of the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the order passed by the Principal

RAJARAM JAISINGH KATE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.263/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

capital gains. 6. Aggrieved with the order of CIT(A) confirming the penalty on the addition of Rs.50 lakhs, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. Before us, at the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee referring to the additional grounds, submitted that there is ambiguity in the mind of AO in recording the satisfaction while initiating and levying

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

140 taxmann.com\n463/288 Taxman 519 (Delhi) held that the order under section 148A(d) and notice\nunder section 148 of the Act should be set aside when the reassessment was\ninitiated on a change of opinion where the same was discussed and verified by the\nAssessing Officer at the time of original assessment proceedings.”\n38. We find

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

140 2007-08 4,15,841 9,13,070 2008-09 1,53,741 7,02,330 2009-10 11,99,778 26,07,330 2010-11 15,48,638 88,00,180 2011-12 13,25,420 1,62,58,260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench