CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

capital gains from compensation or enhanced compensation from land acquisition, but not on interest on such compensation. In the present instance, the amount represents interest on enhanced compensation, but the compensation or enhanced compensation itself. Thirdly, reference is made to Section 57 (iv) rws 56(2)(viii). Section 57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

gain account before 31.07.2010 i.e.Due Date for filing\nReturn of Income. Thus, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer\nhas accepted that Assessee has purchased a new asset within the\ntime specified under section 54F of the Act.\n8.1 The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Narayan\nRavi Prakash vs ITO [2024] 167 taxmann.com 192 (Karnataka) held

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 149 of the Act? 4. The ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.3546931/- u/s 69A rws 115BBE in respect of cash deposits in bank account without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. The ld CT(A) erred in la and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.2145000

JAYVANTI JANARDAN BHANUSKAR,RAIGAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

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

167 ITR 471 (SC) has held that when\nsubstantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other,\ncause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot\nclaim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate\ndelay. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being\nthrown

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

167, Dr. A. B. Road, Mumbai - 400018. PAN: AAACN2703L Whereas I have reason to believe that your income in respect of which you are assessable chargeable to tax for the A. Y. 2010-2011 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. I, therefore, propose to assess for the said assessment year

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

Gain on Rs. 2,63,83,209/- in her return of income filed for A.Y. 2013-14. Further, the assessee has also not brought on record whether he/she has fulfilled the conditions as laid down u/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b). The land in question is a capital asset within the meaning of section

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

167 taxmann.com 70]. In paras 48 to 72, Hon'ble Supreme Court has\ndiscussed this issue and has held that the notice under the new provision of section\n148 have to be seen considering the proviso to section 149. He accordingly\nsubmitted that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since no notice u/s 148 could\nhave been

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

167 (Delhi). 16. So far as the allegation of the Ld. PCIT that no evidence exists on record to prove the creditworthiness of the persons / entities and the ITRs of none of the lenders brought on record is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to pages 687 to 704 of the paper book-II submitted that the assessee

DREAMS BELLE VUE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-2(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs.\nThe State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, condone\nthe said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.\n2\nITA No. 1157/PUN/2025, AY 2016-17\nITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025,\nAYs 2016-17 & 2014-15\n3.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

DREAMS BELLE VUE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), PUNE

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

167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs.\nThe State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, condone\nthe said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.\n2\nITA No. 1157/PUN/2025, AY 2016-17\nITA Nos.1157 & 1158/PUN/2025,\nAYs 2016-17 & 2014-15\n3.\nThe assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 2 ITA No.59/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in family business

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal. 3. Briefly stated the facts are that for AY 2015-16, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2015 declaring total income

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

167 taxmann.com 373 (Kar.) [2024] 34 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) (i) Tirupati Construction Company vs. ITO, 165 taxmann.com 176 (Raj.) [2024] (ii) Ashok Dhanraj Chordia vs. PCIT, Pune-1, ITA No.977/PUN/2024, Hon. Members, “A” Bench, ITAT, Pune dt. 30.07.2025 17. Further on examining the facts of the instant case in light of the above judgment

LATE VISHWAS GAJMAL SONAWANE,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD-1, DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.194/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Late Vishwas Gajmal Sonawane, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Through Legal Heir Milind Ward-1, Dhule Vishwas Gajmal, Plot No.40, Vishwasindhu Sneh Nagar, Station Road, Opp. Khandal Vipra Bhavan, Dhule – 424 001, Maharashtra Pan : Ablps6973N Appellant Respondent

gain on sale of Agricultural Land has been wrongly computed at the time of filing the return as it is not a capital asset as per the provisions of section 2(14) of the Act. However, ld. Assessing Officer vide order dated 18.01.2022 rejected the Rectification application holding that “as the issue for which the assessee has filed rectification application

BRAHMAN SABHA KARVEER,MAHARASHTRA vs. CIT EXEMPTION PUNE, CIT EXEMPTION PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

167 B Ward Mangaldham, Room No.322, 3rd Floor, Income Mangalwar Peth Karveer, vs Tax Office, PMT Bldg., Shankar KOLHAPUR – 416 012 Seth Road, PUNE – 411 037. State of Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN AAATB1370L Appellant Respondent For Assessee : -None- For Revenue : Shri Keyur Patel, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.08.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

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

section 115BBE. Ld.DR for 4 the Revenue relied on ITAT Decision OF Gaurav Ajmera Vs. DCIT [2024] 167 taxmann.com 293 (Indore Tribunal). Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, assessee had filed original Return of Income on 05.02.2018 declaring total income of Rs.NIL and Agricultural Income of Rs.5,52,310/-(page

GAURAV RAJA PATHAK,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIRCLE1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

section 143(1)(a) the learned CPC does not have power to disallow the set-off of losses. 4. Merits of the case The appellant contends that, the learned AO ought to have granted a set-off of Rs. 35,95,270 being the remainder of the current year's capital loss u/s 112 against the long-term gains from

VIJAY BALBHIM PISE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

gained from delaying the appeal. Taking a justice oriented approach and also placing reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Master Katiji and Others(1987) 167 ITR 471(SC) & in the case of Inder Singh Vs State of Madhya Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025) INSC 382), we hereby condone