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

capital gain\nand added the same in respondent's income under Section 68 of the Act.\nWhile allowing the appeal filed by respondent, the CIT[A] deleted the\naddition made under Section 68 of the Act. The CIT[A] has observed that\nthe A.O. himself has stated that SEBI had conducted independent enquiry\nin the case of the said broker

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

Capital Gains amounting to Rs.2,57,47,042/-. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd.(supra) [2022] 441 ITR 346 (SC). The Dispute Resolution Panelheld that there is no variation proposed in the Draft Assessment Order with reference to Assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IAB

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

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

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

section 147 r.w.s 148 is bad in law and void ab initio on several counts. Thus, it is requested that proceeding may please be quashed. 3. On the facts and in the circumstance of case and in law. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appellant ground that, assessment order passed us. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 &144B dt 28/09/2021

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

Capital Gain Rs.24,00,000/- \n5. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 147 read with section 144B

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

capital gains from transactions on which Securities Transaction Tax is paid in the light of the above stated facts of the case, rendered the assessment order dated 29/03/2022 as erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Therefore the assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B

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

144B of the Act on 19.09.2022 by disallowing the deduction claimed u/s 54B of the Act at Rs.2,85,69,375/-. 4. Subsequently the Ld. PCIT examined the record and noted that the assessee during the year had sold a land for a consideration of Rs.13,75,95,200/- on which long term capital gain was offered at Rs.6

PUNKAAJ KAALAY,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ACT, CPC, CPC

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

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

144B of the Act vide his order dated 09.12.2022 thereby making the following additions : (i) Short Term Capital Gain (STCG) of Rs.1,59,77,75/- and (ii) unexplained investment of Rs.3,05,00,000/-. Simultaneously, he initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act and accordingly, issued show cause notice(s) to the 2 ITA No.1890/PUN/2024

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains because these were created out of bank deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessees after the money transferred from the account of M/s. Alfa India. No telescopic benefit have been given as it was out of the source deposited in the bank accounts of the assessees. Netting of the money left have also not been considered

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

144B of the Act. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering and deciding the appeal filed by the Assessee on the basis of the merits of the case. 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the adoption of the stamp duty valuation under Section 50C of the Act without properly considering the appropriate

RAMESHWARDAS SHIVCHARANDAS AND COMPANY ,NANDED vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.524/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain from sale of said land. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) placing various legal issues but on account of non-compliance ld.CIT(A) passed an exparte order and confirmed the addition made by AO without passing a speaking order. 4. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

144B of the Act. 2. When the appeal called for, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice of hearing. A perusal of the record indicates that in the past assessee had failed to appear on the following dates of hearing viz.19.09.2024, 14.11.2024, 11.03.2025, 16.04.2025 and 07.05.2024. From the above details of notices of hearing which have

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

section 270A(9) of the Act the penalty has been levied, therefore, such penalty is not sustainable in law and is liable to be deleted. 5 8. Even on merit also, he submitted that since the assessee was not knowing the provisions of law and was misguided by one Counsel that capital gain is not attracted on sale of agricultural

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

SUBHLAXMI GURUNATH KAMAT,SINDHUDURG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KUDAL

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1795/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Subhlaxmi Gurunath Kamat, V The Income Tax Officer, 308, Kalasewadi, Banda S Ward-1, Kudal, S.O.(Sindhudurg), Banda, Sindhudurg. Sindhudurg – 416510. Pan: Cmwpk9642J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 25/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal 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 The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 06.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 06.03.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.03.2023. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.1795/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the action of the AO, NaFAC of computing the income from Long Term Capital Gains

GAURI SAGAR SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

section 144B of the Act determining the assessed income at Rs. 2,27,94,772/- by making an addition of Rs.2,24,96,100/- on account of alleged Long Term Capital Gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 12, PUNE vs. VARUN JAIN, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamorecross Objection No.14/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2720/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Varun Jain, The Acit, P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, V Circle-12, Pune. Pune – 411014. S. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Acit, Varun Jain, Circle-12, Pune. Vs. P-024, Forest County, Kharadi, Pune – 411014. Maharashtra. Pan:Aexpj0171J Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Fenil Bhatt – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Abhinay Kumbhar - Dr Date Of Hearing 05/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: In This Case, Revenue Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under C.O.No.14/Pun/2025 [A] & Ita No.2720/Pun/2024 [R]

144B of the Act ("reassessment order") are bad-in-law on account of failure to satisfy jurisdictional requirements under section 147 to 151A of the Act. Therefore, the reassessment order must be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to amend, alter, modify and add any further grounds of cross objections, if required.” 1.3 Both these appeals were heard together. C.O.No.14/PUN/2025