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

Section 10(38)\nand treating such long term capital gain as bogus.\n\n25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s.\nManidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017,\norder dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted\nthat

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

156 (Kar.), (ii) CCIT vs. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd., 201 ITR 101 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 148 ITR 478 (P&H). 51. As regards the applicability of ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

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

156 (Kar.), (ii) CCIT vs. Machine Tool Corpn. of India Ltd., 201 ITR 101 (Kar.) and the decision of the Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Beco Engineering Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, 148 ITR 478 (P&H). 51. As regards the applicability of ratio of the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case

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

BALU VITHAL PAWALE,PUNE vs. ITO WD- 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An 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.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

gain on account of sale of immovable property valued at Rs.1,24,50,000/- The assessee's share in this transaction is 5 Rs.53,00,000. I have therefore, reason to believe that the income ITA No.2869/PUN/2025 [A] chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.53,00,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of provisions of section

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 :

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) arising in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the development agreement. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who without admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed valid return of income as well as not paid an amount equal

BHARAT KANTILAL CHANGEDE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2012-13

capital gain and also made addition of Rs.75,84,125/- being the difference between total fixed deposits declared by the assessee at Rs.25,68,457/- and information obtained from the bank u/s 133(6) of the Act at Rs.1,01,52,582/-. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged

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

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

156 of the Act is Rs.9,65,15,083/- and Rs.9,68,69,836/-, respectively. The ld. AR argued that the approving authority Addl. CIT has to verify everything in detail while giving approval u/s. 153D of the Act relating to section 153A of the Act assessments and no such verification has been done as the approval, draft assessment order

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

section 80P "the whole of the amount of profits & gains of business" emphasize that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the society & as such interest earned on funds which are not required for business purpose falls under the category of other income taxable under

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

156 of the Act to deposit the demand but it is\nnoticed that the appellant has not deposited the demand before filing of this\nappeal. The appellant, at sl. no. 16 of Form-35, has stated to have made\npayment of appeal fee of Rs.1,000/- only. At sl. No. 9 of Form-35, the\nappellant has offered 'Not applicable

UDAY JAWAHAR KOTNIS,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.01/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Jawahar Kotnis, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. 601 A Building, Waterfront, Kalyani Nagar, Pune- 411001. Pan : Abtpk0141N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri V. L. Jain : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Ao Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Making An Addition Of Rs.1,75,00,000/- As Commission Under The Head Income From Other Sources. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave To Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal Or Add To The Same, If Deemed Necessary.

Capital Gains, Investment in immovable property & deduction against income from other sources.” 4. During the course of assessment proceedings, statutory notice was issued to the assessee & in reply assessee furnished necessary information & documents. After considering the reply of the assessee & in the absence of evidences in support of claim of deduction of Rs.1,75,00,000/- made by the assessee

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 taxmann.com 385 vi) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta (2008) 174 Taxman 476 (Del) vii) ACIT vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain vide ITA Nos.3820 to 3823/MUM/2019, dated 22.04.2022 viii) M/s. Simtools Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1574/Mum/2020, dated 09.02.2022 22 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 ix) ITO vs. Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.1229/Mum/2013, dated 28.02.2018 x) S.P. Goyal

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 taxmann.com 385 vi) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta (2008) 174 Taxman 476 (Del) vii) ACIT vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain vide ITA Nos.3820 to 3823/MUM/2019, dated 22.04.2022 viii) M/s. Simtools Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1574/Mum/2020, dated 09.02.2022 22 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 ix) ITO vs. Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.1229/Mum/2013, dated 28.02.2018 x) S.P. Goyal

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 taxmann.com 385 vi) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta (2008) 174 Taxman 476 (Del) vii) ACIT vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain vide ITA Nos.3820 to 3823/MUM/2019, dated 22.04.2022 viii) M/s. Simtools Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1574/Mum/2020, dated 09.02.2022 22 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 ix) ITO vs. Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.1229/Mum/2013, dated 28.02.2018 x) S.P. Goyal

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

156 taxmann.com 385 vi) CIT vs. D.K. Gupta (2008) 174 Taxman 476 (Del) vii) ACIT vs. Shri Anand Jaikumar Jain vide ITA Nos.3820 to 3823/MUM/2019, dated 22.04.2022 viii) M/s. Simtools Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1574/Mum/2020, dated 09.02.2022 22 ITA.Nos.1696 to 1703/PUN./2024 ix) ITO vs. Kranti Impex Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.1229/Mum/2013, dated 28.02.2018 x) S.P. Goyal