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

143(3) dated 31.01.2014, he\nsubmitted that the issue of loans has already been scrutinized during the original\nassessment proceedings, therefore, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the\nre-assessment proceedings initiated are merely based on change of opinion. He\nsubmitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has relied solely upon the\nInvestigation Wing report, which

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

143(3) dated 31.01.2014, he\nsubmitted that the issue of loans has already been scrutinized during the original\nassessment proceedings, therefore, in absence of any fresh tangible material, the\nre-assessment proceedings initiated are merely based on change of opinion. He\nsubmitted that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has relied solely upon the\nInvestigation Wing report, which

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

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

143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 22.03.2016 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,79,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.15,08,324/-. The Assessing Officer in the said order has allowed the claim of long term capital gain of Rs.1,44,35,387/- claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act after

M/S. SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE (BOT).,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 2,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.850 & 851/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Suyojit Infrastructure F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Sharanpur Road, Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422002 …. Pan: Abgfs0351P Vs. The Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

143(3) of the Act on 01.06.2012. The Assessing Officer while passing the said assessment order had verified the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. After elaborating on various aspects of the claim made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer in para 6.1 and para 8 of assessment order had held as under:- “6.1 Further assessee

M/S. SUYOJIT INFRASTRUCTURE (BOT).,,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX : 2,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.850 & 851/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2011-12 M/S. Suyojit Infrastructure F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Sharanpur Road, Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422002 …. Pan: Abgfs0351P Vs. The Prl. Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

143(3) of the Act on 01.06.2012. The Assessing Officer while passing the said assessment order had verified the claim of deduction under section 80IA(4) of the Act. After elaborating on various aspects of the claim made by the assessee, the Assessing Officer in para 6.1 and para 8 of assessment order had held as under:- “6.1 Further assessee

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act on 24.12.2018 assessing the total\nincome at Rs.1,64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of\ndisallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of\nunexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.\n8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee

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

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

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

143(3) r.w.s.153A\nof the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised specific queries on the issue of long\nterm capital gain from sale of shares of NITSL and the assessee had replied to the\nsame, therefore, the reopening the assessment in absence of any tangible material\nis not in accordance with law.\n\n43. He accordingly submitted that once

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law : 1. The AO erred in reopening the case and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that

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

143(3) r.w.s.153A\nof the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised specific queries on the issue of long\nterm capital gain from sale of shares of NITSL and the assessee had replied to the\nsame, therefore, the reopening the assessment in absence of any tangible material\nis not in accordance with law.\n\n36\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors\nCO Nos.2

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

143(3) r.w.s.153A\nof the Act, the Assessing Officer has raised specific queries on the issue of long\nterm capital gain from sale of shares of NITSL and the assessee had replied to the\nsame, therefore, the reopening the assessment in absence of any tangible material\nis not in accordance with law.\n\n43. He accordingly submitted that once