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

gain would not be speculative under section 43(5).‖ In the above referred decision, the question No.3 which has been referred to the Hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

207 ITR 737, had held that an asset cannot be acquired first as a non-capital asset at a different point of time and again as a capital asset at a different point of time. There can be only one acquisition of the asset and that is when the assessee acquires it for the first time, irrespective of its character

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

capital gain was worked out for both the properties at Rs. 1,37,31,142/-. However this was not admitted by the assessee in the return of income………… 14.We have carefully perused the penalty order dated 25-9-2015 and we find that the Assessing Officer considered all the factual aspects raised by the assessee and rejected the same

SUDHIR VISHWANATH SHINDE,DHULE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, DHULE

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is allowed

capital gain and income from other sources. 3. Before the ld. CIT(A) the assessee has contended that since he is a senior citizen and was not having any business income, therefore, no interest u/s 234B and 234C of the Act was leviable. In this regard, we find that section 207

RAMA DAMU BHAGAT,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD-1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Rama Damu Bhagat, V The Income Tax Officer, Room No.4, Yashoganga S Ward-1, Panvel. Chg, Tilak Road, Panvel – 410206. Maharashtra. Pan: Bicpb8875P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Ajinkya Vaishampayan(Virtual Hearing) Revenue By Shri Sandeep Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/10/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/10/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeal(Nfac) Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.09.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.11.2019. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :

gains of business or profession"; and (b) is of the age of sixty years or more at any time during the previous year.]” 7.1 Thus, as per Section 207(2)(b) of the Act, for the Individual who is above the age of 60 years provisions of Section 207(1) are not applicable. In this case, Assessee is born

SHRI GANAPATI DEVASTHAN TRUST,BARAMATI vs. DCIT(EXEMPTION CIRCLE), PUNE, PUNE

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 Shri Ganapati Devasthan Trust Dcit Siddheshwar Galli, Baramati, Vs. (Exemption Circle), Maharashtra – 413102 Pune Pan: Aants4193D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ambarnath Bhimrao Khule (Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 03-03-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 20-03-2025 O R D E R

gains reinvested in another capital asset According to CBDT Circular No. 883 and various court rulings, including CIT vs. East India Charitable Trust and Akhara Ghamanda Dass vs. Asst. CIT. investments in fixed deposits exceeding six months are considered as acquiring a new capital asset. However, the AO denied the exemption under Section 11(1A) on procedural grounds

JAGDISH DHANAJIRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(5),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1657/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Jagdish Dhanajirao Jadhav, 117, St. Patrick‟S Town, Pune Solapur Road, Wanowarie, Haveli, Pune-411 013. Pan : Aappj9143C .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(5), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

capital gain (i.e. Rs.1,93,25,207 less indexed cost of 2 A.Y.2014-15 acquisition) for transfer of half share in ancestral land situated at Bapod, Vadodara. 2. The learned I-T authorities erred in law and on facts, in not appreciating that appellant has already transferred the his half share in ancestral land situated at Bapod, Vadodara on 21/4/2007, considering

A.C.I.T ,WARDHA CIRCLE , WARDHA , WARDHA vs. M/S KAPIL SOLVEX PVT .LTD , YAVATMAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2009-10

207 (Bom), he submitted that in this case the assessee had declared the value of immovable property received on account of dissolution of the company. In the reasons recorded, it was stated that the assessee had received consideration on sale of property. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held that the reopening should be based on correct facts

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

207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure

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

207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure

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

207 (Pune- Trib.) 3. Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT 102 ITD 375 (Pune-Trib.) 4. CIT Vs. Babulal K. Daga 79 taxmann.com 337 (Guj.) 5. CIT Vs. S.K. Srigiri & Bros 171 taxman 264 (Kar.) B. Regarding the second issue relating to the addition u/s.69C of the Act the amount for addition cannot exceed the difference between unaccounted expenditure

M/S. GARUDA PLANT PRODUCT LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

capital gain would be attracted and in any way, it is for the business expediency that the said investments were made in the equity shares of M/s. 6.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the expression „for the purpose of the business‟ is wider in scope than the expression „for the purpose of earning profits‟. So long

M/S. GARUDA PLANT PRODUCT LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

capital gain would be attracted and in any way, it is for the business expediency that the said investments were made in the equity shares of M/s. 6.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the expression „for the purpose of the business‟ is wider in scope than the expression „for the purpose of earning profits‟. So long

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

207 of Paper-Book-II\n- ERIS – Page 205 of Paper-Book-II\n- Abbot – Page 212 of Paper-Book-II\nFrom these sponsorship letters, it will reveal that, pursuit of the sponsorships is not to grant any freebies to medical professionals. On the other hand, pursuit is to mitigate costs of education and research programs.\n3.9 Regulations issued

VIKAS RATANLAL JAIN,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.648/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Ratanlal Jain, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.32, Station Road, Aurangabad. Vedant Nagar, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Afapj5847B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nandkishor S. Daga & Shri Nitesh N. Daga Revenue By : Shri Shashank Ojha Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “01. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ctt(A) Along With The Learned Ao Has Erred In Contending That Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Is Applicable To All The Immovable Properties Even If Such Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade. As Mentioned In The Explanation To The Aforesaid Section, Property Means The ‘Capital Asset’ Of The Assessee & Hence If Land Is Considered As Stock In Trade, Provisions Of Such 2 Section Are Not Applicable To Such Purchase. Reliance Is Placed On The Various Judicial Precedents Wherein It Has Been Held That The Provisions Of S. 56(2)(Vii)(B) Are Not Applicable To Stock In Trade But Is Applicable Only To Capital Assets:  Commissioner Of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (Huf)

section are not applicable to such purchase. Reliance is placed on the various judicial precedents wherein it has been held that the provisions of S. 56(2)(vii)(b) are not applicable to stock in trade but is applicable only to capital assets:  Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Ashok Agarwal (HUF) ITAT Jaipur - ITA No. 71/Jp/2020; and  Satendra Kaushik

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

207 of paperbook) that the said entries pertain to the sale of land at Savargaon to Thakkar Group and the purchase of Makhmalabad land. No involvement of the respondent firm or its partner is apparent from the seized paper, nor so identified by the searched party. An addition has been made in the hands of the respondent, without

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

207 of Paper-Book-II\n- ERIS – Page 205 of Paper-Book-II\n- Abbot – Page 212 of Paper-Book-II\nFrom these sponsorship letters, it will reveal that, pursuit of the\nsponsorships is not to grant any freebies to medical professionals. On\nthe other hand, pursuit is to mitigate costs of education and research\nprograms.\n3.9\nRegulations issued

SYNECHRON TECHNOLOGIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 1692/Pun/2018 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Synechron Technologies Private Limited Cedar Building, Ascendas International, Tech Park Pune, Plot No.18, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Pune-411 057. Pan : Aaics2894R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-6, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

section 271(1)(c) of the Act without considering the fact that adjustment to the income of the Appellant is mainly on account of difference of opinion and interpretation of provisions between the Appellant and the learned AO/ Transfer Pricing Officer.” 2. At the very outset, referring to the grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that