DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property. The DVO vide

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property. The DVO vide

KUBER VASANTRAO KENJALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

gain already offered by the assessee of Rs.61,02,196/- the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.40,48,460/- being the difference which has been upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that without obtaining the report from the DVO the Assessing Officer could not have rejected the registered

MARUTI G.THOPTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

16A(5) of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 determined the fair market value of the property at Rs.51,000/- and accordingly, the assessee’s share was worked out at Rs.12,750/- (1/4th of Rs.51,000/-). AO on the basis of report of DVO considered the cost of acquisition of the property at Rs.12,750/-. AO also noticed that assessee

ANIL MURLIDHAR DESHMUKH,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

16A of that Act. 15. Sub-section (2) is without prejudice to the provision of sub- section (1), which implies that an assessee can claim before the Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value 9 A.Y.2013-14 of the property. When such an objection is taken

VIJAY ARVIND RAYKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.3010/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vijay Arvind Raykar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.33, Wadgaon(Bk), Vs 6(2), Pune. Singhagad Road, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Adqpr 1950 F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Abhay A.Avchat– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 29.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount To The Extent Of Rs. 94,526/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. There Is Error In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.27,30,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act & Appropriate Relief Should Be Granted To The Assessee In Respect Thereof. 3. The Assessee Requests For Grant Of Appropriate Relief From Additions Made Under Section 14A & 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Under Section 143(3) Dated September 29, 2017 Is Bad In Law & Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeals)-V, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

gains from ITA No.3010/PUN/2017 for A.Y. 2014-15 Shri Vijay Arvind Raykar(A) transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer. (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation

M/S GOYAL DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Goyal Developers, The Acit, 1, Business Embassy, V Circle-2, Pune. 1205/3/3, J.M.Road, S Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. Pan: Aajfg5666P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/05/2024 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 08.12.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That There Was Marginal Difference Between The Sales Consideration Shown By The Appellant & The Value Adopted For Payment Of Stamp Duty & M/S.Goyal Developers [A]

16A of that Act. Explanation 1.—For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as in clause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957). Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which the stamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything

VENKETESH ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.203/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Venketesh Associates, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. S. No.50 2 Office No.1, Platinum Classic Building, Pune Nagar Road, Chanddan Nagar, Pune- 410014. Pan : Aajfv9490J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.37,53,597/- By Invoking Provision Of Section 43Ca, On Account Of Difference

gains from transfer of such asset, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer: (2) The provisions of sub-section (2) and sub-section (3) of section 50C shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to determination of the value adopted or assessed or assessable under

SUBHADRA TANAJI CHAVAN,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1389/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31, Suparna Niwas S Ward-2, Satara. Pawar Colony, Shahupuri, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bgspc7420D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By 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.2021-22Dated 30.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(1)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

capital gain by adopting a consideration figure at Rs.79,35,500/- instead of actual sale consideration of Rs.22,87,500/- by invoking provisions of section 50C without making any reference to DVO, the entire addition is therefore incorrect and addition deserves to be deleted. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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 on compensation received on compulsory acquisition of urban agricultural land is exempt from tax. The learned assessing officer is not correct while making assessment without properly taken into consideration of the provision of section 10(37) of the income Tax Act, 1961. There are 13 individuals involved, he should consider my share of 1/13th being

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,LONAVALA vs. ITO CEN.II, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital asset and not a trading asset and therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) were not applicable and hence, the disallowance made u/s.40A(3) ought to have been deleted.” Mrs. Bilkis K. Shaikh Legal heir of Shri Kadir Usman Shaikh 20. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee offered the same as exempt income considering the agricultural nature

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital asset and not a trading asset and therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) were not applicable and hence, the disallowance made u/s.40A(3) ought to have been deleted.” Mrs. Bilkis K. Shaikh Legal heir of Shri Kadir Usman Shaikh 20. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee offered the same as exempt income considering the agricultural nature

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital asset and not a trading asset and therefore, the provisions of section 40A(3) were not applicable and hence, the disallowance made u/s.40A(3) ought to have been deleted.” Mrs. Bilkis K. Shaikh Legal heir of Shri Kadir Usman Shaikh 20. Briefly stated relevant facts are that the assessee offered the same as exempt income considering the agricultural nature

NEW BALANCE IT SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(1)- CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0245 & 0246/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2022-23 New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Wing-A, Tower-06, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune-411013. Pan : Aaccn5091R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer-1, Circle-2, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Twin Appeals Are Instituted U/S 253(1)(Aa) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Respective First Appellate Orders Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appels [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23 [‘Ay’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Separate Orders Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

Gains of Business or Profession’ [‘PGBP’] or ‘Income from other Sources’ [‘IOS’] namely; (a) ‘Cash system’, where all transactions are recorded as & when they are paid & received irrespective of year in which they are incurred and unlike (b) ‘accrual or mercantile system’, where all transactions are recorded as & when they are incurred as against the former. Whereas

NEW BALANCE IT SERVICES INDIA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER(1)- CIRCLE 2, PUNEPUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 0245 & 0246/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2020-21 & 2022-23 New Balance It Services India Pvt. Ltd. Level-1, Wing-A, Tower-06, Cybercity, Magarpatta, Pune-411013. Pan : Aaccn5091R . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer-1, Circle-2, Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent द्वधरध / Appearances Assessee By : Mr Rajendra Agiwal [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Ramnath Murkunde [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05/06/2024 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Twin Appeals Are Instituted U/S 253(1)(Aa) Of The Income Tax Act [‘The Act’] By The Assessee Challenging The Respective First Appellate Orders Dt. 19/12/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appels [‘Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2022-23 [‘Ay’] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Separate Orders Of Intimation Passed U/S 143(1) Of The Act.

Gains of Business or Profession’ [‘PGBP’] or ‘Income from other Sources’ [‘IOS’] namely; (a) ‘Cash system’, where all transactions are recorded as & when they are paid & received irrespective of year in which they are incurred and unlike (b) ‘accrual or mercantile system’, where all transactions are recorded as & when they are incurred as against the former. Whereas