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

section is reproduced below “ In the case of an assessee being an individual or a HUF, if the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (original asset) and the assessee has within a period of 1 year before or 2 years after the date on which the transfer 6

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

Appeal is allowed

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

section 2(14) and accordingly, the addition made of Rs. 53,90,000/- ought to have been deleted. 3] The Id. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the various evidences submitted by the assessee to prove that the land sold by him was an agricultural land and hence, the addition confirmed by him is not justified at all. 4] Without

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

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 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

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”].

6] Instant case was not the case where the assessee denied transfer. The assessee had paid capital gains tax for the assessment year 1999-2000. However, the assessee was told that the year of chargeability was the assessment year 1996-97 and not the assessment year 1999-2000. Further,, the assessee had paid the tax for the assessment year

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

2. It was the case of Revenue before the ITAT that the CIT[A] was wrong in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in respect of long term capital gain treated by A.O. as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap

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

6 ITA No.762/PUN/2024, AY 2021-22 In the rejoinder, the Id. AR submitted that in the case of PCIT v. Totagars Co- operative Sale Society (2017) 78 taxmann.com 169 (Karnataka) order dated 05.01.2017, the Hon'ble Court has held that even section 56(i)(ccv) of the Banking Regulation Acts Act, 1949, defines a primary co- operative bank

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

2. It was the case of Revenue before the ITAT that the CIT[A] was wrong in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) in respect of long term capital gain treated by A.O. as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 3. Respondent had shown sale proceeds of shares in scrip Ramkrishna Fincap

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

6. Hence the contention of the Assessing Officer that the same not taxable in India is not tenable in law and assessee company is allowed to set off the capital loss against the capital gain. 8.3.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same, it has been noticed that the appellant

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

6. Hence the contention of the Assessing Officer that the same not taxable in India is not tenable in law and assessee company is allowed to set off the capital loss against the capital gain. 8.3.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same, it has been noticed that the appellant

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

6. Hence the contention of the Assessing Officer that the same not taxable in India is not tenable in law and assessee company is allowed to set off the capital loss against the capital gain. 8.3.1 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions. On perusal of the same, it has been noticed that the appellant

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

6. The assessee purchased shares of penny stock company. Part of this was sold during the FY 2014-15 as detailed above. The detailed investigation carried out by the AO resulted into proving the fact that the assessee in fact claimed bogus long term capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is exempt

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 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section

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

6. After going through the above submissions and material on record, we find that the ITAT Pune Bench 'A' in the case of Pashu Mohammed Zainuddin (supra) has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by observing as under: "4. We find that for charging of capital gain, the assets referred to in section 45 of the Act have

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 is computed under section 50(2) by considering the sale price of the assets transferred during the year as reduced by the opening written down value and the addition made during the year. 6

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

gain tax as it is situated beyond 8 km from the Raipur Municipal Corporation. 02. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the argument of the Ld.AR that the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) does not fall in definition of Municipality as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act was on the strength of judgment

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

gain tax as it is situated beyond 8 km from the Raipur Municipal Corporation. 02. In this regard it is humbly submitted that the argument of the Ld.AR that the Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA) does not fall in definition of Municipality as per section 2(14) of the Income Tax Act was on the strength of judgment