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 based on the Stamp Duty value as per Section 50C as the valuation report from Departmental Valuer was not received in time.The CIT(A) held the transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and directed AO to treat it as business income. Aggrieved by the same the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal

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 based on the Stamp Duty value as per Section 50C as the valuation report from Departmental Valuer was not received in time.The CIT(A) held the transaction as adventure in the nature of trade and directed AO to treat it as business income. Aggrieved by the same the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal

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

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

section 41(1) - cession of liability addition of Rs.50,000/- representing deposits received from M/s. Shubha Associates keeping in mind the smallness of the amount. Rejected accordingly. 5. Lastly comes the long term capital gains addition issue of Rs.49,22

AJINKYA ELECTROMELT PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.891/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Ajinkya Electromelt Pvt. Ltd., Khandelwal Jain & Associates, Alankar Cinema Building, 1St Floor, Above United Bank, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aabca5142M Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-8, Pune

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (in short the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal:- 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that, the amount of Rs.22,90,531/- considered by the Assessing Officer as assessable under the head

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

section 68 without bringing on record any material or evidence to prove that the long term capital gain declared by the Appellant is an accommodation entry against which appellant paid cash. 13 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains' were neither intrinsically nor congenitally of income character. 13. It is submitted that the judgement of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Kishorebhai (supra), on which the AO places reliance simply relied on Harprasad (supra) and decided the issue in the department’s favour. It neither considered the judgement of the Calcutta High Court

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

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

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

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

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

capital income and /or profit arising on speculative transactions u/s.43(5) of the Act.‖ (2) Munjal Showa Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2005) 94 TTJ 227 (Delhi) In this case, it has been laid down as under – ―Foreign currency or any currency is neither commodity nor shares. The Sale of Goods Act specifically excludes cash from the definition of goods. Besides

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

sections mentioned above, more safeguard in the interest of the Government so far as the revenue collection is concerned. The mala-fide transactions or to defraud M/s. Sunnygold Wineries Private Limited the Government/ Revenue exchequer of the country are completely discouraged. Therefore, the transfer of any kind of the properties which are under attachment or strictly prohibited and they

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

22. The reliance of the ld. AR on Premier Automobile Ltd.(supra) again does not lend any strength. That was a case dealing with the assessment year 1995-96 relating to slump sale of the business as a going concern. The Hon‘ble High Court remanded the matter to the AO to compute the quantum of capital gains under

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

22. The reliance of the ld. AR on Premier Automobile Ltd.(supra) again does not lend any strength. That was a case dealing with the assessment year 1995-96 relating to slump sale of the business as a going concern. The Hon‘ble High Court remanded the matter to the AO to compute the quantum of capital gains under

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), 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 : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

section 45(2) is inconsequential. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 23.12.2014 and the following chart disclosing the calculation of correct capital gain on sale of flats: 11 Particulars FY 16-17 AY 17-18 (a) Sale Consideration 3,67,25,561 (b) Total FMV as on date

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 143(3) dated 28/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1. Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 8. The Assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted. 22

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted. 22

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

section 10(38) and made additions, alleging involvement in penny stock which were being misused for providing bogus accommodation of LTCG, however, there was lack of adverse comments from stock exchange and officials of company involved in these transactions and no material relating to assessee was found in investigation wing report, additions made by AO had rightly been deleted. 22