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

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]

6) and (7) of section 23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth- tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16A of that

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 :

16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return: 6. No doubt, in the present case adjustment has been made under sub- clause (ii) to section 143(1)(a). The expression "incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" has been explained under Explanation to section

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

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.

6. Per contra objecting the prayer of the assessee for remand, the Ld. DR Mr Murkunde averred that, insofar as the first contention is concerned, the Ld. CPC/AO by binding judicial precedents well within its jurisdiction in carrying out impugned ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 8 New Balance IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO ITA No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 adjustment

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.

6. Per contra objecting the prayer of the assessee for remand, the Ld. DR Mr Murkunde averred that, insofar as the first contention is concerned, the Ld. CPC/AO by binding judicial precedents well within its jurisdiction in carrying out impugned ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 8 New Balance IT Services India Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO ITA No.245 & 246/PUN/2024 adjustment