VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

144 dated 05/03/2024. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :\nITA No.540/PUN/2025 [A]\n“Being aggrieved by the order passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated December 13, 2024 for the AY 2015-16 ('the order') by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

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 :

144/- being Gross sales proceeds received on sale on agricultural land situated at Gat no.288 of village Chata, thereby bringing the tax at a sum of Rs.71,71,858 as Long-Term Capital Gain by treating the land as non-agricultural land, without giving any justifiable reason, the action needs to be reversed. 2. On the facts

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

144(A) of the Act, the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax gave the following directions :- (a) The loss on sale of shares of Rs.922 crores claimed in the revised return of income should not be entertained. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (b) However, since there is no claim of capital loss of Rs.922 crores in revised return of income, but made during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

144(A) of the Act, the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax gave the following directions :- (a) The loss on sale of shares of Rs.922 crores claimed in the revised return of income should not be entertained. C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 (b) However, since there is no claim of capital loss of Rs.922 crores in revised return of income, but made during

SHARAD RAMGONDA PATIL,SANGLI vs. I.T.O, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act after obtaining the approval of the competent authority. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued a notice u/s 148 of the Act on 31.03.2021. However, there was no response from the side

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

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.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 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 (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act.The ld.AR invited our attention to the legal notice issued by purchaser. The ld.AR also submitted that purchaser has instructed the bank not to honour the cheques which were given to the assessee. The ld.AR submitted that Government of Maharashtra has passed an order on 24.11.2008 (page no.147 – 158 of paper book

SHRI SUNIL NANA KADAM,TAL RAHURI, DIST. AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (ITO), WARD 4, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act, dated 25th December 2019 passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-4, Ahmednagar (hereinafter referred to as the 'AO') and, on the following grounds which are independent of and without prejudice to one another: 1. The Learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs.44

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(5), RAIGAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

section 144 B of the IT act and determined taxable income at ₹ 63,65,000/-. The above said income includes addition of ₹ 63,65,000/- on account of short term capital gain

MADHUKAR GANPAT DHAKWAL,MANGAON vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5, NEW PANVEL

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rama Kant Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.2434 & 2418/Pun/2025 धििाारण वषा /Assessment Year: 2018-19 Madhukar Ganpat Ito, Ward 8(5), Dhakwal, Raigad 1/B At Tilore Post Vs. Vighawali Tal Mangaon, Wighawali B.O Tilore, Raigarh Maharashtra Pan-Bfopd7627G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Ca Hiral D. Sejpal & Ankita P. Gorde Department By: Smt. Sonal L Sonkavde, Addl-Cit Date Of Hearing: 03-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 16-03-2026 आदेश/Order Per Shri Vinay Bhamore: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Same Order Dated 25.08.2025 Passed By Ld. [Cit(A)] Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

section 144 B of the IT act and determined taxable income at ₹ 63,65,000/-. The above said income includes addition of ₹ 63,65,000/- on account of short term capital gain

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]

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 and the circumstances of the case and in law, Learned Assessing Off erred in passing ex-parte order and also erred in not adjudicating the issue on merit, this action is being violative of Pandharinath Mahadeo

VITHALDAS TRIBHUWANDAS BAGADIYA,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.807/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Vithaldas Tribhuwandas The Income Tax Officer, Bagadiya, V Ward-1, Jalna. 2-14-10, M.B.Agecies, S Nehru Road, Kaderabad, Jalna – 431203. Pan: Adypb 5508 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 04/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/10/2023 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.2009-10 Dated 18.05.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 17.03.2016 For A.Y.2009-10. 2. Heard Both The Parties & Perused The Records. Vithaldas Tribhuwandas Bagadiya [A]

144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 17.03.2016 for A.Y.2009-10. 2. Heard both the parties and perused the records. Vithaldas Tribhuwandas Bagadiya [A] 3. The assessee is an individual having income from salary and other sources. The assessee had filed return of income for A.Y.2009-10 under section 139(1) of the Income

RAJESH BALRAM SINGH ,PUNE vs. ACIT , PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

144 of the Act vide his order dated 21.03.2024 thereby treating the entire amount of sale proceeds/value of immovable property of Rs.70,00,000/- as Short Term Capital Gain (“STCG”) earned during the year and added the same to the total income of the assessee for the relevant AY 2016-17. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before

HARESHKUMAR DUNGARMAL JAIN,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that both the legal and factual grounds of appeal of the assessee should be allowed. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta vide ITA No.401/2022

AKASH HARESHKUMAR JAIN,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2018-19

capital gain which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. He accordingly submitted that both the legal and factual grounds of appeal of the assessee should be allowed. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Naveen Kumar Gupta vide ITA No.401/2022

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

section 548 of the Act. it becomes evident that exemption uls.548(1) is subject to the assessee depositing the amount of unutilized capital gain in a designated bank account within the time provided uls.139 of the Act. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that the appellant was a non-filer for the impugned

LAXMAN BHAU PAWALE,AT POST PIRANGUT MUKAIWADI PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2.4 RANGE CODE 53, PUNE SWARGET

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Laxman Bhau Pawale Ito, Ward 2.4, Range At Post Mukaiwadi Code 53, Pune Vs. Pirangut Taluka Mulshi, Pune – 412115 Pan: Bzlpp3421M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Sudam Kudale Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

gain. Since the assessee has not complied to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the various evidences filed before him in shape of 4 additional evidence in absence of any application made under Rule 46A and thereby sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. It is the submission

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

capital gains. Once this principle was accepted and consistently applied and followed, the Revenue was bound by it. Unless of course it wanted to change the practice without any change in law or change in facts therein, the basis for the change in practice should have been mentioned either in the assessment order or atleast pointed out to the Tribunal

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

section 50C of the Act and made addition of Rs.39,23,500/-. In the assessment order, AO had not considered any deduction for cost of acquisition. Assessee had filed appeal against the addition made by the AO in the assessment order before the ld.CIT(A). Assessee submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that the impugned property was purchased in F.Y.2008-09

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

gain arising on sale of the said agricultural land situated at village Mukalwadi Pirangut, Taluka Mulshi, Pune is exempt from taxation as the said land is not capital asset as per provisions of section 2(14)(iii) of ITA, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add/modify/amend/delete all / any of the grounds of appeal. 10. The Ld. Counsel