ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

2 flats and has also added the cost of alteration under the claim of deduction under the said section. Apart from this, an extra Rs 1,00,00,000/- has also been claimed under the said section. Section 54F of the Act refers to the deduction to be claimed by the individual or HUFs in respect of capital gain

PRADIP PRANLAL SHAH,PUNE vs. AU NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI, DELHI

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godara

gain. 2] The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the above referred land sold by the assessee was an agricultural land and hence, the same was not a capital asset as per the provisions of section

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

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 251(2) and principle of natural justice. 10.2 There are two instances, where the Ld.CIT(A) has changed the head of the Income. In first case the Assessee offered the sale of land as Capital gain

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 251(2) and principle of natural justice. 10.2 There are two instances, where the Ld.CIT(A) has changed the head of the Income. In first case the Assessee offered the sale of land as Capital gain

RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

2. Coming to the assessee’s sole substantive ground that both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in adding the capital gains of Rs.19,10,690/- thereby invoking section

R&DE (ENGRS) EMPLOYEES CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

2)(a)(i) of the Act, it has to receive a wider meaning and should be interpreted as covering receipts from sources other than the actual conduct of business. The Court held a Co-operative Society which is carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members, earns profits and gains of business by providing credit facilities

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 10(38) exemption of long capital gain to the assessee amounting to Rs.23,72,323/-. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion confirming the impugned addition on account of bogus long term capital gains as under: “5. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant is engaged

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2(14) which defines capital asset and also provisions of section 70(3) relating to set-off of loss and provisions of section 48 to 55 relating to capital gain

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2(14) which defines capital asset and also provisions of section 70(3) relating to set-off of loss and provisions of section 48 to 55 relating to capital gain

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

2(14) which defines capital asset and also provisions of section 70(3) relating to set-off of loss and provisions of section 48 to 55 relating to capital gain

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

gains attributable to such activities as does not exceed,\n(i) ......\n(ii) in any other case, fifty thousand rupees\nshall be deducted, while computing the total income of the assessee.\nAs per above section, the asessee is eligible for Deduction of Rs 50,000/- from gross total Income,\nsimilarly claimed as deduction U/S 80P(2)(c) from the total

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

RAJANI PRAKASH KASHID,KOLHAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 49(1) (i to iv) of the Act. Accordingly, the same is not liable for capital gain. The Assessing Officer is directed accordingly.” 11. Based on the above factual and legal position and following the decision(s) (supra) of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and in the absence of any contrary material brought on record

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

capital gain. The ambit of section 50 is limited to the treatment of gain arising from the transfer of asset in the circumstances given in sub-sections (1) and (2

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming an addition of capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Limited of Rs.85,38,145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

section 2(22)(e) is redundant. It is bound to be for a specific purpose. The question for determination is as to what is the purpose for which this Explanation. has been incorporated when the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashokbhai Chimanbhai have held that the profits of business do not accrue from

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 2(14 ) of the Income Tax Act. The Ld.AR also argued that the distance of 8 klm should be considered from the municipal limits of Raipur Municipal Corporation. On the strength of these arguments, the Ld.AR submitted that the land acquired by NRDA is not a capital assets, chargeable to capital gain