VASANT SHIVRAM MADHAVI,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD - 5, PANVEL

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain derived from the sale of such immovable property remained undeclared. Thereafter, following the due procedure as provided by section 148A

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

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

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

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

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

capital gain amounting to Rs.1,10,96,685/-. Accordingly, the case of the assessee was sought to be reopened and notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act was issued on 30.03.2022 asking the assessee to show cause as to why her case should not be reopened. The assessee in response to the same objected for such reopening of the assessment

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 148A, citing the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of UOI vs Ashish Agarwal. 6. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the issue of the notice u/s 148, by the Assessing Officer, as the time limit prescribed u/s. 149 for issue of notice for income escaping below Rupees Fifty Lakhs, is only three years. 7. The Appellate

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain. He accordingly, submitted that the above two decisions are not applicable to the facts of the present case. 15. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). 16. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing Officer

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Thereafter, notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 20.03.2023 was issued in 2 response to which the assessee filed her return of income on 20.04.2023 admitting the total income of Rs.8,84,680/-. The Assessing Officer thereafter issued statutory notices

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

M/S OM SHRINIWAS DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ITO WARED-6(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Om Shriniwas Developers, V The Income Tax Officer, Off No.2 & 3, Vastusadan S Ward-6(3), Pune. Bldg, 743, Guruwar Peth, Pune – 411042. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfo7491G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. N C Shilpa – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2025

capital gain / income on sale of property was considered under limited scrutiny assessment and in view of the material on record no addition on the issue is made. The information relied upon while issuing notice under Section 148A

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]

section 143(3) was passed on 15.01.2021 accepting the Returned Income of the Assessee. Ld.AR invited our attention to page no.67 to 69 of the paper book which was copy of the order u/s.143(3) of the Act, dated 15.01.2021. Ld.AR submitted that assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny for Capital Gain Deductions verification. Ld.AR submitted that during

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

148A(b)\n24.05.2022\n26.05.2022\nReply filed by the assessee\n06.06.2022\n06.06.2022\nSurviving time limit to issue notice u/s\n13.06.2022\n26.06.2022\n148\nActual notice issued u/s 148\n25.07.2022\n26.07.2022\n21. He submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal\n(supra) at paras 108 to 112 of the order has also held that any notice issued

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 ('u/s') 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act beyond the jurisdiction as specified u/s 151 of the Act. 1.2. The AO erred in passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, without following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court

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 ('u/s') 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') and order u/s 148A(d) of the Act beyond the jurisdiction as specified u/s 151 of the Act. 1.2. The AO erred in passing the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act and issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act, without following the Jurisdictional Hon'ble High Court

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

capital gains amounting to INR 3,26,81,816 at an incorrect rate of 25% instead of 20% under section 112 of the Act and has consequently computed incorrect tax liability 7. The Lid AO has erred in computing the tax liability on income earned by the Appellant from business operations and other sources by applying at an incorrect base

MANOHAR WAMAN PANDAGALE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(3), PUNE

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

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

section 139 of the Act. Based on the information received from INSIGHT portal, the Ld. Assessing Officer (“AO”) found that during the AY 2015-16, the assessee had deposited cash in his savings bank account, made time deposits, earned capital gain on sale of immovable property and received interest income which has not been offered to tax by the assessee

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

Capital Gain (LTCG) by observing as under : “5.1. On-going through the information available on record and in view of the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act dated 21.07.2022, it is noticed that 2 ITA No.1666/PUN/2025, AY 2013-14 assessee alongwith other co-owners has entered in sale agreement in respect of immovable property for a sale consideration

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gains and also income from other sources and has not filed his return of income. As per information available on AIMS module of ITBA, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs.1,59,63,000/- and also purchased immovable property of Rs.90 lakh, and has deposited cash of Rs.42 lakh and has also paid