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.

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case, the assessee Angelica Properties Pvt Ltd has been amalgamated & merged into Vascon Engineers Ltd. The assessee is in the business of construction &development

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.

234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. The assessee prays leave to add to above grounds to amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Brief facts of the case, the assessee Angelica Properties Pvt Ltd has been amalgamated & merged into Vascon Engineers Ltd. The assessee is in the business of construction &development

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

234B and 234C of the Act. 10. Erroneous non-grant of interest under section 244A of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in not granting interest on refund under section 244A of the Act. 11. Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with 270A of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in initiating penalty proceedings 4 under section

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.3, Oscar Pride, Date V Ward-3, Ahmednagar. Colony, Behind Atharva S Mangal Karyalaya, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Afapr 3796 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2023 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, Pune Dated 22.01.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane [A]

section 54B, it should have been given a liberal interpretation so as to allow the benefit u/s 54B in respect of the amount actually invested towards purchase of the impugned agricultural land within the stipulated time limit. 6. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the A.O. has erred in allowing deduction u/s 54B of 2 Shri

ACIT,CIR.-1,, AURANGABAD vs. SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 wherein it has been observed as under: “41. The learned DR had also raised some objection to the revised margin of profit shown by the taxpayer by taking lower rate of depreciation. This objection in our opinion is without any substance. The depreciation is required to be worked out under the Indian Companies

SKODA AUTO INDIA PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.714/Pun/2011 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2005-06 The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Aurangabad. .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd. Plot No.A1/1, Shendra Five Star Industrial Area, Midc, Aurangabad-431 201 Pan :Aaecs3749M ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

Gain Communications Pvt. Ltd. 118 TTJ 354 wherein it has been observed as under: “41. The learned DR had also raised some objection to the revised margin of profit shown by the taxpayer by taking lower rate of depreciation. This objection in our opinion is without any substance. The depreciation is required to be worked out under the Indian Companies

KIRAN BABURAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, PMT BUILDING SWARGAT

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Kiran Baburao Jadhav Dcit, Swargate, Pune Flat No.4, Shubhamkar Apts, Lane Vs. No.14, Bhandarkar Road, Pune – 411004 Pan: Addpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gajanan N Kondhare Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-08-2025 O R D E R

capital gain and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,14,23,740/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised his return of income on 31.01.2024 by declaring additional income of Rs.97,06,000/- and paid tax on the above amounting to Rs.33,66,040/-. The facts leading to the above additional income

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

capital gain. The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming that amount received by appellant was on account of a sale of tenancy rights. 9. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned, the order passed by learned AO under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is bad in law and void

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

section 54F of the ITA, 1961 is not fulfilled. The learned CIT(A)-1, ought to have appreciated that, the funds received on sale of land were blocked by SBI for recovery & repayment of loans of M/s. Prathmesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and were not released in-spite of several requests made by the appellant, so that residential house property

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

3 years from the end of the relevant A Y 2015-16, as it is below Rs.50.00 Lakhs as per section 149 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Hence, the Notice issued by the JAO and the assessment 2\ndone thereafter are without jurisdiction, bad in law and therefore needs to be set aside.\n5.\nIn the facts

GAURI SAGAR SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 8(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.101/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Gauri Sagar Shivale, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 32/4, Nimbalkar Nagar, Ward – 8(3), Pune Brt Road, Near Rajiv Gandhi Vs. College, Tathawade, Mulshi, Pune-411033 Pan : Bjipp4685G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S. Pathak Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 15-05-2025 Date Of 21-07-2025 Pronouncement :

Capital Gain (“LTCG”) arising in the hands of the assessee pursuant to the development agreement. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who without admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has not filed valid return of income as well as not paid an amount equal

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

234B. 4. The issue raised in both the appeals is against adoption of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 while computing income from capital gains. 3 5. The assessee moved an application for adjournment, which was refused in view of the issue being settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

234B. 4. The issue raised in both the appeals is against adoption of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 while computing income from capital gains. 3 5. The assessee moved an application for adjournment, which was refused in view of the issue being settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case

JOHN THOMAS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

3. CIT(A) has erred in not cancelling interest charged u/s 234B. Appellant prays for cancellation of interest charged u/s 234B 4. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional ground/s and/or withdraw the ground/s during appeal proceedings. Appellant prays to allow the same.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee claimed exemption

M/S. SCHLUMBERGER INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2010-11 M/S. Schlumberger India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Schlumberger Global Support Centre Ltd.-India Branch) Office No.701, 7Th Floor, Building No.9, Commerzone, Survey No.144/145, Samrat Ashok Path, Off Airport Road, Yerwada अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411006 …. Pan: Aalcs2048C Vs. The Dy. Director Of Income Tax (It)-Ii, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

gain arising on account of business operations from operating costs. 11 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Ld. AO has erred in and the Honourable DRP has further erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO of not allowing an adjustment for the difference between the level of risk borne

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain. We are attaching herewith computation sheet for the return filed for the AY 2016-17 (Annexure 6) 6. Here the assessing officer has considered the difference between the sale value disclosed in the sale deed vis-à-vis determined by the Stamp Duty Valuation Authority, as income in the hands of the assessee and brought