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.

Capital Gain taking the sale consideration at Rs.117,31,70,040/- for two assessment years as under : AY Sale consideration disclosed in the Sale consideration for the Return of Income purpose of Section 48 r.w.s 50C 2010-11 103,40,00,000/- 115,63,94,491/- 2011-12 1,50,00,000/- 1,67,75,549/- Total

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.

Capital Gain taking the sale consideration at Rs.117,31,70,040/- for two assessment years as under : AY Sale consideration disclosed in the Sale consideration for the Return of Income purpose of Section 48 r.w.s 50C 2010-11 103,40,00,000/- 115,63,94,491/- 2011-12 1,50,00,000/- 1,67,75,549/- Total

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

200/-. The only hospital building, falling in that block, was transferred during the year for a total consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-. The assessee started construction of a new hospital- cum-residential building and showed the addition to the block of building by a sum of Rs.78,39,068/-. The point for determination is as to whether the action

SANJEET RAJENDRA GUGALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.386/Pun/2017 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 वष"

200/-. During the year, assessee earned capital gains on sale of lands. On this account, the assessee earned capital gains of Rs.1,46,10,643/-. While the sum of Rs.1 crore was invested in specified NHAI bonds in two instalments in two financial years and claimed deduction u/s.54EC of the Act. The balance of gains was duly offered

SATISH ZUMBERLAL FIRODIA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.669/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

section 50C of the Act at Rs.1.64 crore and determined the amount 4 Satish Z. Firodia of long term capital gain at Rs.1.28 crore. The assessee’s 1/5th share was computed at Rs.25,69,200/-. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

200/- u/s 68 of the Act treating the long term capital gain claimed as exempt by the assessee u/s 10(38) of the Act as bogus. The Assessing Officer further made addition of Rs.9,15,732/- u/s 69C of the Act being the commission paid in cash for arranging such accommodation entries which has not been recorded in the books

NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 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(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

200/-. Assessing Officer has specifically mentioned Return of Income was filed under section 139(1) of the Act. The Assessee had claimed deduction u/s.54F of the Act. Assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, Assessee submitted before Assessing Officer that Assessee had deposited Rs.8 crore in Capital Gain

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

200% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income in consequence of mis-reporting thereof. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued by the assessee that penalty u/sec.270A is not leviable when the income of the assessee is estimated. It was argued that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has estimated the profit

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

200% of the amount of tax payable on under-reported income in consequence of mis-reporting thereof. 3. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued by the assessee that penalty u/sec.270A is not leviable when the income of the assessee is estimated. It was argued that the Assessing Officer in the instant case has estimated the profit

BHAGWAN RAGHUNATH PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3),, PUNE

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

1) & 143(2) the Assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that, out of the total consideration on sale of agricultural land situated at Survey No.67 at Kharadi Pune on 06.08.2011, he and his wife Latabai pathare had received consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. As there was a difference in the total consideration shown in the Return of Income

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

200 shares of Parag- Shilpa Investment Co. Ltd. on merger. There was a change in the name of existing company viz. Parag-Shilpa Investment Co. Ltd. to PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd. w.e.f. 12.08.2014. The shares of PS IT Infrastructure & Services Ltd. were split in the ratio of 1:10. The value per share was now Rs.1/- and the appellant

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

1: Penalty order invalid due to failure in specifying applicable limb under section 270A(9) of the Act in all notices and orders throughout the penalty proceedings In the facts and circumstance of the present case and in law, the penalty order passed under section 270A of the Act, levying penalty 2 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains earned on sale of immovable property has supressed the fact that he had taxable income in his hands. Thus when 270A(9) (a) is read with 270A(2) (b) and 270A(3) (1) (b) (A), there is under reporting of income consequent to misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.24,70,490/-in hands of appellant

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

200 121 28.10.2004 15,50,000 121 29.10.2004 15,00,000 121 01.11.2004 5,00,000 120 21.12.2004 12,00,000 101 24.12.2004 1,00,000 120 04.01.2005 50,000 120 22.12.2004 10,00,000 120 28.01.2005 10,00,000 120 29.12.2004 4,00,000 120 21.02.2005 1

GERA DEVELOPMENTS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -1,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

200 121 28.10.2004 15,50,000 121 29.10.2004 15,00,000 121 01.11.2004 5,00,000 120 21.12.2004 12,00,000 101 24.12.2004 1,00,000 120 04.01.2005 50,000 120 22.12.2004 10,00,000 120 28.01.2005 10,00,000 120 29.12.2004 4,00,000 120 21.02.2005 1

DY. CIT, CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE vs. GERA DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 597/Pun/2013 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

200 121 28.10.2004 15,50,000 121 29.10.2004 15,00,000 121 01.11.2004 5,00,000 120 21.12.2004 12,00,000 101 24.12.2004 1,00,000 120 04.01.2005 50,000 120 22.12.2004 10,00,000 120 28.01.2005 10,00,000 120 29.12.2004 4,00,000 120 21.02.2005 1

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

200/- on which long term capital gain was offered at Rs.6,19,31,262/-. From the working of long term capital gain he noted that the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 48 of the Act on ‘cost of improvement’ on the said land amounting to Rs.1,88,85,580/- (after indexation). The said ‘cost of improvement’ has been claimed

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee did not file any explanation. Another notice was given to the assessee and the assessee furnished written explanation, which is reproduced under para 5 of penalty order. In the said reply, the assessee pointed out that he had filed income tax return declaring total income of ₹ 4,52,637/-. Subsequently

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. FINOLEX INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

1) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in accepting the plea of the assessee that "Mutual Funds" is not a trading investment whereas no such distinction has been provided in the Act to ascertain whether any activity is a "Business" as per Sec. 2(13) of the Income