M/S. VARDHAN NUTRITIONS AND CHEMICALS PVT. LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.662/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 M/S. Vardhan Nutritions & Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.535/2, Ershimgathi Road, Old Thana Naka Road, Thana Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Panvel, Dist. Raigad. …. Pan: Aabcv9194J Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Panvel

22. Under the machinery sections the capital gains are computed by deducting from the consideration received on transfer of a capital asset, the cost of acquisition, the cost of improvement and the expenditure incurred in connection with the transfer. The meaning of the expressions “cost of improvement” and “cost of acquisition” used in sections 48 and 49 are given

MAHATMA GANDHI NAGRI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MYDT UDGIR,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD 1 -LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

22. With the insertion of sub-section (4) by the Finance Act,\n2006, which is in the nature of a proviso to the aforesaid\nprovision, it is made clear that such a deduction shall not be\nadmissible to a cooperative bank. However, if it is a primary\nagricultural credit society or a primary cooperative agricultural\nand rural development bank

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

d) of section 269UA. 2. For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that “transfer” includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating any interest in any asset in any manner whatsoever, directly or indirectly, absolutely or conditionally, voluntarily or involuntarily

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

D Associates Fiber Optics 326208 23.01.2015 Mr. Decor P Ltd. Sofa set, Arm Chair, Center Table, Vase 1176300 15.01.2015 Sathe& Company Bathroom Fittings 420000 17.02.2015 Stanley Boutique Cushions 100000 17.02.2015 Design Plazo Interior Ltd SS Bed, Tables 260000 02.11.2014 Stroika Almirah, Vase 325000 Total 1,10,05,154 5.1.5 All these items are ineligible to be classified as repairs

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

D E R Per S.S. Godara, JM These assessee’s three 3 appeals for AY 2012-13 – 2014-15 arise against the CIT(A)-12, Pune’s common order dated 07.11.2016 in case No. PN/CIT(A)- 12/445, 446, 447/2015-16 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) in the former

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.

d. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income from long term capital gains of Rs (-) 4,10,30,399/- as shown in the return of income ought to have been accepted by Assessing Officer. e. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that

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.

d. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income from long term capital gains of Rs (-) 4,10,30,399/- as shown in the return of income ought to have been accepted by Assessing Officer. e. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

22. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee earned long term capital gain on sale of shares and the Assessing Officer denied said claim and made additions under section

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Section 10(38) and treating such long term capital gain as bogus. 25. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble AP High Court in the case of M/s. Manidhari Stainless Wire (P.) Ltd. vs. Union of India vide W.P. No.5917 of 2017, order dated 31.10.2017, copy of which is placed in the paper book, he submitted that

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

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

d) ... shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction." From the above provisions of section 43(5), it is evident that in view of proviso (a) to the said section, the loss on account of a contract in respect of raw material to guard against loss through future price fluctuations shall not be deemed to be speculative transaction

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

d) ... shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction." From the above provisions of section 43(5), it is evident that in view of proviso (a) to the said section, the loss on account of a contract in respect of raw material to guard against loss through future price fluctuations shall not be deemed to be speculative transaction

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

d) ... shall not be deemed to be a speculative transaction." From the above provisions of section 43(5), it is evident that in view of proviso (a) to the said section, the loss on account of a contract in respect of raw material to guard against loss through future price fluctuations shall not be deemed to be speculative transaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

22. Referring to the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Swati Bajaj (supra), he submitted that the Hon'ble High Court in the said decision has held that where the assessee earned long term capital gain on sale of shares and the Assessing Officer denied said claim and made additions under section

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

d) of the Act. The benefit of exemption u/s 11 was denied in the case of the appellant due to violation under section 13(l)(c)/13(2) and, therefore, such partial disallowance in no case is permitted under the Act. In other words, in case of violation u/s 13(l)(c) r.w.s 13(2)(a) to (h), the assessee

AJINKYA ELECTROMELT PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-8, Pune

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that, the amount of Rs.22,90,531/- considered by the Assessing Officer as assessable under the head

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1185/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Dharamsi Hirji Chauhan, 777, Shivaji Nagar, Ratnagiri – 415612 PAN : AASPC0104B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1186/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI 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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1185/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Dharamsi Hirji Chauhan, 777, Shivaji Nagar, Ratnagiri – 415612 PAN : AASPC0104B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1186/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

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

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

D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1185/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Ratnagiri Circle, Ratnagiri .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Shri Dharamsi Hirji Chauhan, 777, Shivaji Nagar, Ratnagiri – 415612 PAN : AASPC0104B ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.1186/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assistant Commissioner of Income