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.

200/- with reference to the building called “Hotel Tower”. 4. Aggrieved by the said additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).The CIT(A) held that the profit arising from sale of impugned immovable property (Matrix IT Building) is liable to be assessed as Business Income and not Capital gain. The CIT(A) arrived

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.

200/- with reference to the building called “Hotel Tower”. 4. Aggrieved by the said additions, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).The CIT(A) held that the profit arising from sale of impugned immovable property (Matrix IT Building) is liable to be assessed as Business Income and not Capital gain. The CIT(A) arrived

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

section 50(2), he computed the short term capital gain by reducing the written down value and value of the block from the sale consideration of Rs.35,51,000/-, for determining short term capital gain at Rs.31,31,800/-. Since the benefit of depreciation was claimed by considering the construction of new building as part of the block

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

200/- on account of capital gain on transfer of land. 3. Tersely stated, the facts of the case are that an immovable property situated at Survey No.122/1, Kedgaon, Ahmednagar (hereinafter called `the property in question’) was sold through registered sale deed on 07-12-2010 jointly by 5 co-owners (all are brothers and sisters) for a sum of Rs.5.00

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs.1,00,08,355/- from the sale of 200,000 shares of Mishkafin Finance and Trading Ltd. (MFTL), claiming exemption under Section 10(38). The Assessing Officer (AO) treated this as unexplained money under Section 69A and added it to the income.", "held": "The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings were initiated on a \"mere change

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

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 28.12.2018 made the addition of Rs.1,52,62,200/- u/s 68 of the Act being the long term capital gain claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act by the assessee on account of sale of 78925 shares of M/s Nivyah Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd. While doing so, he held that bell

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

3. The Assessing Officer observed from the Return of Income filed by the Assessee that the Assessee did not have any other income apart from long Term Capital Gain(LTCG) which was declared at Rs. 1,57,239/-. Besides this the Appellant had declared Net agricultural income for rate purpose at Rs. 2,00,000/-. In the computation filed along

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.

3. No one appeared on-behalf of the assessee. It was observed that on 24/05/2022 also no one appeared on-behalf of the assessee for hearing. No adjournment letters were filed. Therefore, we heard the Ld.DR, perused the records and heard the appeal. 4. The assessee had purchased 25000 shares at Rs.10 per share of M/s Swift IT Infrastructure & Services

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 Account maintained with State Bank of India having

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

3 Prakash G. Ghorpade documents whose registration is compulsory and section 49 of the Registration Act deals with the effects of non-registration of documents required to be registered u/s 17 of that Act, section 47 of the Registration Act deals with an altogether different aspect of time from which a registered document operates. It is only after a document

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:

3 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, NFAC in the case of brother of the assessee submitted that he has accepted the sale of land as agricultural land and no addition on account of capital gain has been made in the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s

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

200%, concluding it as case of under- reporting in consequence of misreporting is vague, arbitrary and invalid considering the failure to specify in any of the notices as well as in the penalty order as to which limb of section 270A(9) of the Act is allegedly attracted in the present case: 2. Ground No. 2 - Levy of penalty under

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

200/- towards commission for sale of\nTDRs the assessee has shown the balance Rs.6,85,71,501/- directly\nas an increase in his capital account instead of routing through the\nProfit & Loss account, even though the nature of receipt in the hands\nwas the revenue receipt as the assessee was indulged into\nsubstantial purchase and sale of land, plots, commercial

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

3 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. the due date for filing the return of income from 30 September 2014 to 30 November 2014 for AY 2014-15. 2.3. Without prejudice to the aforesaid grounds, the learned CIT(A) erred in law applying the provisions of AY 15-16 whereby concluding that the capital gains were liable

RAJENDRA BABULAL MALU,HUF,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.3,30,60,200/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,98,95,128/- by holding that the transactions of (SEBI). The Assessing Officer had also analyzed the modus operandi adopted

ARCHANA RAJENDRA MALU,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4,, ICHALKARANJI

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Archana Rajendra Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-4, 237, Manish Trading Ichalkaranji. Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Abepm4622K Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1868/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajendra Babulal Malu, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Huf, Ichalkaranji. 237, Manish Trading Company, Azad Road, Jaysingpur, Dist.- Kolhapur- 416101. Pan : Aachr7709H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.09.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Two Different Assessees Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 03.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of Two Different Assessees, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.1867/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Are Stated Herein.

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.3,30,60,200/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer denied the claim for exemption of capital gains u/s 10(38) of the Act amounting to Rs.2,98,95,128/- by holding that the transactions of (SEBI). The Assessing Officer had also analyzed the modus operandi adopted

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

3 and 4 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the reply given by Shri Ajay Bhagwandas Tapadiya to question No.18 which reads as under: “Q.18 Now, I am showing you page no 1 of Bundle no1 seized from your office chamber during the search action at office

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

200% which was Rs.20,64,224/- to 100% i.e. Rs.10,32,112/-. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal. 5. In this case, it is admitted fact that the addition made by AO did not survive after the order of ld.CIT(A). As per the computation of capital gain, there