ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BODKE,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Capital Gain of Rs.51,79,319/- after claiming deduction of Rs.38,11,000/- u/s. 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee was co-sharer of land admeasuring 1H 13R comprising in Gut No.239, Village: Gahunje, Taluka- Maval, Dist.- Pune. After sale of said land, the assessee invested part of his share

AFSHA SHAMIM AHMED KHAN ,NASHIK vs. THE ITO WARD-1(3), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 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.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

184 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. Assessee filed an Affidavit for condonation of delay. We have perused the Affidavit and are convinced that there is reasonable and sufficient cause for delay. Hence, delay is condoned. Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Assessee had not filed Return of Income

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

5. Further, the assessee claimed a deduction u/s 54F of the Act. The Assessing Officer disallowed the claim u/s 54B of the Act. Thus, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of deduction from the sale consideration of Rs.48 lakhs and restricted the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.5,44,184/- on account

NARARSHABH SHARMA,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 7(3), PUNE, AAYAKAR SADAN PUNE

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

section 139(9) of the Act observed that Ld.AO is empowered to condone the delay and treat the return as valid return even after the lapse of permitted time, but before completion of assessment. Therefore, the order of the CPC cannot be held to 3 ITA.No.1530/PUN./2025 (Nararshabh Sharma) be unlawful to that extent. The Ld.CIT(A) further held

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

capital gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

capital gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

capital gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

capital gain earned by the appellant on sale of shares of M/s. Pearl Agriculture Ltd. by holding that the said sale transaction of shares as bogus and non-genuine particularly when the appellant has provided all the basic evidences in support of genuineness of the transactions. 4. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

5 are allowed.” 20. The above finding of ld.CIT(A) that ld.AO has merely extrapolated the figures without having any concrete evidence remains uncontroverted at the end of ld. DR and it has been admitted that for the extrapolated figures there is no reference in the seized material. Further incriminating material seized paper 17 does not in any manner indicate

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

Capital gains") for— (i) the transfer of all or any rights (including the granting of a licence) in respect of a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade mark or similar property ; (ii) the imparting of any information concerning the working of, or the use of, a patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process or trade

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

5) requires the assessee to show that there is a profit from the unit and such profit is to be worked out treating the unit as a separate entity. After such treatment there is no profit to the assessee and therefore, the assessee is not entitled for any deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a). Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for deduction

SAKAL PAPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 6, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

5) requires the assessee to show that there is a profit from the unit and such profit is to be worked out treating the unit as a separate entity. After such treatment there is no profit to the assessee and therefore, the assessee is not entitled for any deduction u/s.80IA(4)(iv)(a). Accordingly, the assessee’s claim for deduction

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

5. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A vide order dated 31.12.2019. 6. Now, we shall take up the appeal of the assessee in IT(SS)A No.91/PUN/2022 for the assessment year 2012-13 as a lead case for adjudication. IT(SS)A No.91/PUN/2022, A.Y. 2012-13 – By Assessee : 7. The assessee

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

5)(a) of Article 12 of the India and Netherland treaty. On receipt of the DRP directions, the AO has passed the final assessment order vide order dated 04.07.2019 by bringing it to tax the above items in conformity with the directions of the DRP as Royalty income at Rs.26,02,184/- and the Software Maintenance services, Consultancy services

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

5)(a) of Article 12 of the India and Netherland treaty. On receipt of the DRP directions, the AO has passed the final assessment order vide order dated 04.07.2019 by bringing it to tax the above items in conformity with the directions of the DRP as Royalty income at Rs.26,02,184/- and the Software Maintenance services, Consultancy services

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY GAURI PLASTICULTURE PVT. LTD.,),JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital as on 31-03-2010 in ECP Housing (India) Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer held that since the lender company as per books of account as on 31-03-2010 has Reserves and Surplus to the tune of Rs.2,22,12,758/-. The provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act get attracted and the advance received from