M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

2. It was the case of Revenue before the ITAT that the CIT[A] was wrong in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in respect of long term capital gain treated by A.O. as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

2. It was the case of Revenue before the ITAT that the CIT[A] was wrong in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in respect of long term capital gain treated by A.O. as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 143(2)(ii), no notice under clause\n(ii) shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of 6 months\nfrom the end of the financial year in which the return is furnished.\nIn my case, notice u/s 143(2) was not served before the expiry of\n6 months from the end of the F. Y. in which

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital, if not immediately required to be lent to the members, they cannot keep the said amount idle. If they deposit this amount in bank so as to earn interest, the said interest income is attributable to the profits and gains of the business of providing credit facilities to its members only. The society is not carrying on any separate

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961\nPAN: AAAAA6582G\nJA777436326IN\nName: AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI\nSAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT\nAHMEDNAGAR\nAddress: 1 OPP SARDAR PATEL KARYALAY,\nBEHIND DR.KETKAR HOSPITAL AHMEDNAGAR\nAHMEDNAGAR 414001, Maharashtra\nDIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(2)/2021-22/1033764253(1)\nDate: 29/06/2021\n Assessment Year: 2020-21\nFinancial Year: 2019-20\nआपको यह संचार क्यों मिल रहा है?\nWhy are you getting this

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act”. 2. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. The very factual position existed as on 23-11-2020, 18-12-2020, 10-11-2021, 03-03- 2022 and 30-06-2022 as well. I therefore, proceed ex parte against the assessee. 3. Mr. Jasnani invited

ASSISTANT 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

143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act” in latter twin assessment years, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue has raised its identical three substantive grounds in the instant many appeals since the only distinction is that of the quantum involved

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

143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act” in latter twin assessment years, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue has raised its identical three substantive grounds in the instant many appeals since the only distinction is that of the quantum involved

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

143(3) r.w.s. 92CA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in short the “Act” in latter twin assessment years, respectively. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the Revenue has raised its identical three substantive grounds in the instant many appeals since the only distinction is that of the quantum involved

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

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

2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming an addition of capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Limited of Rs.85,38,145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

143(3) of the Act in the last assessment year; respectively. 2. We note at the outset that there is a delay of 800 days in filing this assessee’s appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019. He has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for the same as attributable to beyond it control. The Revenue is fair enough to not dispute this

RAJANI PRAKASH KASHID,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 20.12.2018 on total income of Rs.49,41,380/- including therein an addition of Rs.49,32,500/- on account of long term capital gain. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee and endorsed the findings

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

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was issued and served on the assessee. Subsequently the Assessing Officer issued notices u/s 142(1) of the Act which were also duly served on the assessee. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had entered into a joint

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”].

143." 3. In para 5.8, learned A.O. , while referring the judgment of Hon. Bombay High Court that in case of Godrej & Boyce, has observed that Hon. High Court ruled that Rule 8D was applicable from A.Y. 2008-09 as it was notified on 24.03.2008 and due date for filing ITR for A.Y. 2007-08 was elapsed. It is humbly submitted

M/S. CHAKRABARTY MEDICAL CENTRE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Chakrabarty Medical Centre, C-802, Palmdale, California Apartments, Nibm, Undri Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411060 …. Pan: Aabfc5809Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei

2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the capital gains on sale of the property was disclosed by the two partners of the assessee firm in their returns and simply because, the capital gain is finally assessed in the hands of the assessee firm and not the partners does not mean that there was concealment of income