VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

section 2(47) of the Act. Accordingly, the AO proceeded to treat the sum of Rs.4,84,34,491/- as capital gain arising on transfer of rights in the property as per Para Nos. 3.9 and 3.10 of his order. Contents of the said paras read as under : “3.9 The use of words "any arrangement or any other manners whatsoever

MR. GAURAV RAJENDRA MALU,JAYSINGPUR vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18

section. 07. In view of the above, the assessment order dated 29/03/2022for the A.Y. 2017-18 is hereby set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification of fact and to re-examine the issues considering the aspects discussed in the foregoing paragraphs and decide the issues afresh. However, before arriving at any conclusion, the Assessing Officer

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

capital gain and interest on dividend as well as TDS on the same was remained to be disclosed in the return of income. He further stated that as against total income declared in the return of income at ₹ 4,52,637/-, the Assessing Officer had assessed the income at ₹ 20,05,450/- and once the credit for TDS was allowed

MANGESH KRISHNATH EKBOTE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 43(1), we hold that the authorities below were not justified in disallowing 4 Mangesh K. Ekbote depreciation on fixed assets to the extent of Rs.45,909/-. The impugned order is overturned to this extent. 5. The only other issue which survives in this appeal is against treating profit on sale and purchase of shares amounting to Rs.34

LAXMAN MARUTI SHITOLE,,PUNE vs. ` INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gains. In my considered view, the CIT(A) is not correct in not giving a view on the applicability of the said judgments. Therefore, I restore this issue also to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with set the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground

ANIL MARUTI SHITOLE,,PUNE vs. ` INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

capital gains. In my considered view, the CIT(A) is not correct in not giving a view on the applicability of the said judgments. Therefore, I restore this issue also to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee in accordance with set the set principles of natural justice. Accordingly, Ground

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD – 3, SATARA vs. M/S. SHRI BHAIRAVNATH MULTISTATE COOPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

194 • CIT Vs. Andhra Pradesh State Co-operative Bank Ltd. (336 ITR 516) (AP) Reliance is also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bangalore Distt. Co-op. Central Bank Ltd [1998] 99 TAXMAN 404(SC). This assessee had earned interest from investment in Government Securities and dividend on shares of Industrial Finance

VIJAYSINGH J JADHAVRAO,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteshri Vijaysingh Jaysingh The Income Tax Officer - 2(5) Jadhavrao Pmt Building Shivajinagar Vs. Swargate, Pune 411037 Jangali Maharaj Road Pune 411005 Pan – Aaqpj3021L Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Hari Krishan Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 29.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Ay 2012-13 Is Against The Cit(A)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 28.07.2017 Passed In Case No. Cit (A), Pune-3/10424/2015-16 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

Section 80IB(10) deduction of Rs.3,76,98,194/- as derived from sale of housing project/unit as per corresponding joint venture agreement dated 01.12.2006 executed with M/s. Raviraj Realties. His next argument in light of the additional ground read with additional evidence petition dated 26.04.2022 is that its foregoing income deserves to be treated under the head “capital gains

PASHANKAR AUTO WHEELS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. CIT(A) CIRCLE-4, PUNE

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

section 194-I) 4,50,000 2 3. He, therefore, passed an order u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 26.03.2022 after following due procedure. Since income to the tune of Rs.4,46,64,231/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 of the Act on 26.03.2022 which was duly served upon the assessee

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

194, 195, 196C and 199 of the Act, quoted above, would further fortify the fact that the dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act is a special category of income which has been treated differently by the Act making the same non-includible in the total income of the recipient assessee as tax thereon had already been paid

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 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(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

194, 195, 196C and 199 of the Act, quoted above, would further fortify the fact that the dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act is a special category of income which has been treated differently by the Act making the same non-includible in the total income of the recipient assessee as tax thereon had already been paid

SAGAR JAYWANT ELAWANDE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD13(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.224/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sagar Jaywant Elawande, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(1), Pune. 457, Shaniwar Peth, Pune City, Pune- 411030. Pan : Aampe1025B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 26.03.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Derived Income From Salary & Also Sold Immovable Property But Return Of Income Was Not Filed. On The Basis Of Above Information, The Case Was Reopened U/S 147 & Notices U/S 148A(B), 148 & 142(1) Respectively Were Issued To The Assessee. Since The Assessee Did Not Reply To Any Of The Notices

capital gain was arising on sale of immovable property, since he has invested the whole of the consideration in purchase of another property i.e. flat. Ld. AR further submitted before us that though no advance tax was payable by him, he prepared a computation of income to be submitted before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and according to that computation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FUTURA BIOPLANTS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is partly

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No. 1271/Pun/2015 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

194 (P&H HC) 5. CIT Vs. Kerala Electric Lamp Works Ltd. 261 ITR 721 (Ker. HC) 6. Eventually, the CIT(A) held that the income earned by the assessee on sale of saplings constitute deemed agricultural income of the assessee vide Explanation 3 to section 2(1A) of the Act. 7. Aggrieved with the above decision

MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital gain/ loss and not the company. The ld. DR further pointed that the flats are continuously occupied by Manish Ishwarlal Jain and his family, therefore, it cannot be said that the flats are used by staff/officials of the company for business purpose. The ld. DR prayed for affirming the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and dismisses

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital gain/ loss and not the company. The ld. DR further pointed that the flats are continuously occupied by Manish Ishwarlal Jain and his family, therefore, it cannot be said that the flats are used by staff/officials of the company for business purpose. The ld. DR prayed for affirming the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and dismisses

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

capital gain/ loss and not the company. The ld. DR further pointed that the flats are continuously occupied by Manish Ishwarlal Jain and his family, therefore, it cannot be said that the flats are used by staff/officials of the company for business purpose. The ld. DR prayed for affirming the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and dismisses

KPIT CUMMINS GLOBAL BUSINESS SOLUTIONS LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed, appeal of assessee relating to assessment year 2009-10 and appeal of Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.246/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09

gain a business foothold into the BPO segment of business was rejected by the Assessing Officer in the absence of assessee to establish from Cummins group companies. The Assessing Officer also noted that the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee had claimed in his statement that sum of ₹ 20,18,75,000/- was payment against intangible assets, which