HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Yerwada, Pune – 411006 Vs. PAN : AABTH8220Q अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kiran Sanmane Department by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date of hearing : 29-04-2025 Date of 29-05-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : Two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate order(s) both dated

SHRI GANAPATI DEVASTHAN TRUST,BARAMATI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION CIRCLE), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

1A) applies to capital gains reinvested in another capital asset According to CBDT Circular No. 883 and various court rulings, including CIT vs. East India Charitable Trust and Akhara Ghamanda Dass vs. Asst. CIT. investments in fixed deposits exceeding six months are considered as acquiring a new capital asset. However, the AO denied the exemption under Section

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains on transfer of immovable property on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that the levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2 Dinar Umeshkumar More 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 12.02.2020 is barred

HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound,\nYerwada, Pune – 411006\nVs.\nITO, Ward-7(1), Pune\nPAN : AABTH8220Q\nअपीलार्थी / Appellant\nप्रत्यर्थी / Respondent\nAssessee by :\nShri C.H. Naniwadekar\nDepartment by :\nShri Ramnath P. Murkunde\nDate of hearing :\n18-06-2025\nDate of\nPronouncement :\n26-06-2025\nआदेश / ORDER\nPER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :\nThe appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

MRS BALBIR KAUR BIRDIE ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO 11(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain, the assessee filed a revision petition u/sec.264 of the Act before the PCIT. The PCIT considered the said petition of the assessee and set aside the order passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act to the file of Assessing Officer to compute the income as per the provisions of law. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued two notices u/sec.142

RAVINDRA JAISINGRAO CHAVAN,AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, , AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

1A) of the Act, the assessee stated that the notings in the diary relate to his real estate business and out of cash receipts he had made a declaration of additional income of Rs.1.28 crores for F.Y.2020-21. However, the assessee had declared the income from real estate under Long-term capital gains at (-)Rs.3,93,219/- in Income Tax Return

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

capital gain is calculated by considering the WDV as per Income Tax Act. The reason behind the difference in these two mechanisms for arriving at the fair valuation is the question of law. However, the new shareholders might lose the benefit of tax saving on depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares

BRIG. (RETD.) JITENDRA KUMAR NARANG,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD 11(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gain on sale of mutual funds were made. Subsequently, on 11.09.2017 the Assessing Officer passed order u/s 154 by making addition on account of investment in purchase of mutual fund of Rs.5,30,000/- to the income of the assessee thereby revising the income to Rs.10,94,290/- which was originally assessed at Rs.5,64,290/-. We further find

ANIL BANSILAL LODHA,NASHIK vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK - 1, NASHIK

In the result, it is directed that the order passed under section 263 be set aside

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

capital gain was to be taxed u/s. 112A of the Act, particularly when the exemption u/s. 10(38) was withdrawn from the next assessment year and the provisions of section 112A were inserted from next assessment year. 4. On the basis of the facts, in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the order passed by the Principal

KALA ARVIND JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

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

1A), 54, 54B, 54C 54D, 54EC, 54EE, 54F, 54G, 54GA, 54GB, 115F, etc. Statutory notice(s) u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time calling for details regarding the consideration received on sale of land and claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act amounting to Rs.2,71,06,162/-. The assessee submitted

KRISHAN KUMAR TARACHAND,PUNE vs. ITO (IT) WARD -2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

Capital Gain”. 5. Later vide order dated 08-02-2024 LD CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee & consequently confirmed the penalty of Rs.6,09,760/- imposed by the AO. 6. Being aggrieved with the above said order dated 08.02.2024 of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. When the present appeal

VARDHAMAN VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, 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.741/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vardhaman Vasundhara Family Trust, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Ward – 7(1), Pune Yerwada, Pune-411006 Vs. Pan : Aactv6457E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 Date Of 27-06-2025 Pronouncement :

1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Ward – 7(1), Pune Yerwada, Pune-411006 Vs. PAN : AACTV6457E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department by : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date of hearing : 25-06-2025 Date of 27-06-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

BALASAHEB VITTHAL SHINDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(4), PUNE, AAYAKAR VIBHAG, PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2011-12 Balasaheb Vitthal Shinde Ito, Ward-5(4), Pune Chaledi, Nasarapur, Taluka Bhor, Vs. Pune – 412213 Pan: Anips1140A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Deepak S Sasar Department By : Shri Vidya Ratan Kishore Date Of Hearing : 17-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

gain and tower rent of Rs.1,57,138/- as income from other sources. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed certain additional evidences which the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has accepted and forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for filing a remand report. The Assessing Officer filed the remand report which was forwarded to 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

1A) Notwithstanding that no income-tax is payable by a domestic company on its total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the tax on distributed profits under sub-section (1) shall be payable by such company. (2) The principal officer of the domestic company and the company shall be liable to pay the tax on distributed

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-

1A) Notwithstanding that no income-tax is payable by a domestic company on its total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the tax on distributed profits under sub-section (1) shall be payable by such company. (2) The principal officer of the domestic company and the company shall be liable to pay the tax on distributed

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), the Assessing Officer, after adding the TP adjustment of Rs.3,07,80,000/- and the disallowance of health and education cess at Rs.24,70,183/- determined the total income at Rs.29,53,41,873/-. 3. Before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the assessee apart from challenging

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

1A) of the Act. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in estimating undisclosed income of the appellant company at Rs.3,57,37,400/- being 85% of the alleged unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.4,20,44,000/- without appreciating that the cash found