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

e) The other factor which governs the happening of transfer is the handing over of possession. This section says "and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession continues in possession in part performance of the contract and has done some

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

e-filing portal using the link: incometaxindiaefiling.gov.in Sub:- Show cause notice u/s 263 of the I T Act 1961 in the case of Shri Arunkumar Purushotamlal Khanna, for A.Y. 2015-16 - Reg. *********************** Kindly refer to the above. In the above mentioned case, on verification of case records for A.Y. 2015-16 it has been observed that the assessment order passed

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.

e. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income from short term capital gains of Rs 20,36,683/- as shown in the return of income ought to have been accepted by Assessing Officer. f. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in disallowing the deduction claimed

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.

e. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating that the income from short term capital gains of Rs 20,36,683/- as shown in the return of income ought to have been accepted by Assessing Officer. f. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in disallowing the deduction claimed

ASHWINIKUMAR RAMKUMAR PODDAR,PUNE vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2757/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ashwinikumar Ramkumar Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Poddar, Pune. Plot No.342, Sind Society, Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aarpp7606E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2758/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aditya Arunkumar Poddar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Plot No.130, Sind Society, Pune. Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ahspp3084G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal Revenue By : Smt. Sonal L. Sonkavde Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Two Different Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2757/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 the additions so made on account of deemed dividend under clause e of sub-section 22 of section 02 be calculated on the net debit balance which should be done after cumulatively taking into consideration the implied daily interest on the daily balances of current account maintained with the company - AEPL

ADITYA ARUNKUMAR PODDAR,PUNE vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2757/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Ashwinikumar Ramkumar Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Poddar, Pune. Plot No.342, Sind Society, Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aarpp7606E Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2758/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Aditya Arunkumar Poddar, Vs. Acit, Central Circle-1(2), Plot No.130, Sind Society, Pune. Baner Road, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Ahspp3084G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Kandelwal Revenue By : Smt. Sonal L. Sonkavde Date Of Hearing : 02.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.04.2026 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 28.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-11 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2021-22 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Two Different Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2757/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1 the additions so made on account of deemed dividend under clause e of sub-section 22 of section 02 be calculated on the net debit balance which should be done after cumulatively taking into consideration the implied daily interest on the daily balances of current account maintained with the company - AEPL

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SACHIN GOVIND APTE, PUNE

Accordingly, Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1720/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, V Sachin Govind Apte, Ward-3(1), Pune. S. 759-63, Prabhat Road, Erandwana, Pune – 411004. Pan: Aavpa9458P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Ms.Vaishnavi Badwe Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde - Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 03/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue 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.2013-14 Dated 15.05.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 30.03.2016. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.78,72,000/- Made Under Head Stcg & Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 54F Of The It. Act, 1961? 2. Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Hon‟Ble Cti (A) Was Justified In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.1,20,00,000/- Made On Account Of Deemed Dividend U/S Section 2(22)(E) Of The I.T. Act, 1961?

Section 2(29A) of the Income Tax Act. Hence the sale of impugned plot gives rise to Long Term Capital Gain. The AO had disallowed Assessee’s Claim for 54F deduction only on the ground that it was not Long-Term Capital Gain. Since now we have held that sale of impugned plot give rise to Long Term Capital Gain

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

22,40,864 in fixed deposits, the assessee received interest of Rs.36,35,296 to which the AO has not allowed deduction u/s. 8OP(2)(a)(i) or 8OP(2)(d) of the Act. whereas the assessee has claimed deduction of amount u 8OP(2)(a)(i) of the Act. The assessee submits that it is operational income because

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

e of M.P. v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of natural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining a witness. 7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition: • Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458 /2016 dated 27/07/2016 (Delhi

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

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

e of M.P. v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of natural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining a witness. 7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition: • Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458/2016 dated 27/07/2016 (Delhi

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

22 CTR (Cal) 8 : 1981) 129 ITR 169 (Cal concurred with." In view of the above facts and discussion and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the above mentioned decisions, I am of the considered view that the A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs.9,38,05,174/- on account of disallowance of loss in respect

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

22 CTR (Cal) 8 : 1981) 129 ITR 169 (Cal concurred with." In view of the above facts and discussion and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the above mentioned decisions, I am of the considered view that the A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs.9,38,05,174/- on account of disallowance of loss in respect

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

22 CTR (Cal) 8 : 1981) 129 ITR 169 (Cal concurred with." In view of the above facts and discussion and respectfully following the ratio laid down by the above mentioned decisions, I am of the considered view that the A.O. is not justified in making addition of Rs.9,38,05,174/- on account of disallowance of loss in respect

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

e of M.P. v. Sadashiuva Vishampayan reported in AIR 1961 SC 1623, has also confirmed the that, principle the rules of natural justice require that a party should be given the opportunity of cross-examining a witness. 7.7 In addition, the following judgments advocate the above proposition: • Pr.CIT-3 vs. DKB Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., ITA 458 /2016 dated 27/07/2016 (Delhi

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 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

22,959/- and income from other sources Rs.10,32,549/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed compensation received on account of acquisition of agricultural land as exempt and claimed refund of Rs.16,89,498/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that since the agricultural land was not under cultivation the land ceases to be agricultural

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

22,959/- and income from other sources Rs.10,32,549/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed compensation received on account of acquisition of agricultural land as exempt and claimed refund of Rs.16,89,498/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that since the agricultural land was not under cultivation the land ceases to be agricultural

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

22,959/- and income from other sources Rs.10,32,549/-. In the return of income the assessee claimed compensation received on account of acquisition of agricultural land as exempt and claimed refund of Rs.16,89,498/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer held that since the agricultural land was not under cultivation the land ceases to be agricultural