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

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

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in\nlaw, the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has erred in deleting addition of\n21,00,08,500/ on account of long-term capital gains (LTCG)\nfrom the sale of 200,000 shares of MISHKAFIN as unexplained\nmoney under section

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

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

SHRI. PRAKASH GANPATRAO GHORPADE,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), KOLHAPUR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara

sections 54 etc., be chargeable to income tax under the head "Capital gains", and shall be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. Manifestly, income under this head becomes chargeable to tax in the year in which the transfer takes place. `Transfer‟ takes place only when it becomes operational, that

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

capital gains in purchase of these two flats totalling to Rs.5,30,60,200/- as wrongly allowed u/s 54F in the Assessing Officer’s regular assessment (supra). The assessee succeeds in his first and foremost grievance in very terms therefore. 10.1. We adopt the foregoing detailed discussion mutatis mutandis to accept the assessee’s instant substantive ground in principle thereby

LAXMAN BHAU PAWALE,AT POST PIRANGUT MUKAIWADI PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2.4 RANGE CODE 53, PUNE SWARGET

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Laxman Bhau Pawale Ito, Ward 2.4, Range At Post Mukaiwadi Code 53, Pune Vs. Pirangut Taluka Mulshi, Pune – 412115 Pan: Bzlpp3421M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Sudam Kudale Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

1) of the Act which remained un-complied with. A show cause notice issued u/s 144 of the Act also remained un-complied with. The Assessing Officer thereafter completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act and made addition of Rs.3,74,17,200/- as undisclosed capital gain. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee filed various details

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

capital in nature.\n\n2. On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and send the matter back to AO for verification on the issue of disallowance of write back of provision for restructured advance amounting to Rs.260

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

Capital Gain arising out of this transaction in his IT Return for A.Y. 2006-07 by considering the Agreement value i.e. cheque component of sale consideration of Rs.7,13,800/-. However, he has not offered to tax the cash component of Rs.17,76,200/- till date. Therefore, now he has offered to tax an amount of Rs.17,76,200