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.

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 . There

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

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

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

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

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

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

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

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

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

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)

capital gains earned during the subject year 8. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act, despite the Appellant filing its return of income within the prescribed due date. 9. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B and 234C

HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 2(290) denotes two separate levies and hence MMR does not automatically include higher rate of surcharge. 5. In not appreciating that the total income of the appellant of Rs.18,86,13,290/- includes income of Rs.18,52,68,427/-on which maximum surcharge is 15 per cent (viz. short-term capital gains u/s 111A, long-term capital gains

HREYANSH VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 2(290) denotes two separate levies and hence MMR does not automatically include higher rate of surcharge. 5. In not appreciating that the total income of the appellant of Rs.18,86,13,290/- includes income of Rs.18,52,68,427/-on which maximum surcharge is 15 per cent (viz. short-term capital gains u/s 111A, long-term capital gains

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

Sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act.\n7.\nYour appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify alter and / or delete any of the above grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.\nDelay condonation :\n1.1 There is a delay of 16 days in filing appeal before this Tribunal. We have perused the submission and found that there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, PUNE vs. SHRI PADEMAKAR GOPAL BHIDE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon. & Dcit, Circle-2, Vs Padmakar Gopal Bhide, 1St Floor, „A‟ Wing, Pmt Pune Building, Shankar Seth Road, Swargate, Pune. Pan: Abbpb 7155 P Appellant/Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, Ca Revenue By : Shri M.G. Jasnani, Dr Date Of Hearing : 10/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 11/07/2023 O R D E R Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 09.03.2023 For A.Y.2014-15 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:-

capital gain Audit Objection Accepted by earned during the year as per the Dept.] mentioned in para section 209(1)(a) of the Income 10 of CBDT circular Tax Act, 1961. No.03/2018 2 The appellant prays that the order of the ld.CIT(A) be held to be bad in law and be quashed Padmakar Gopal Bhide and that the order

KUBER VASANTRAO KENJALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

capital gain of Rs.61,02,196/- the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.40,48,460/- to the total income of the assessee. 6. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 7. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising

VILAS BABANRAO RUKARI (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 2(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vilas Babanrao Rukari (Huf), 149, Shivdarshan, Mukund Nagar, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411037 Pan: Aafhv6744K

capital gain for A.Y. 2006-07 in view of provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the amount received by the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). 5. The appellant denies his liability to pay interest

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI VILAS BABANRAO RUKARI (HUF),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1640/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 2(1), Pune …. Vs. Shri Vilas Babanrao Rukari (Huf), 149, Shivdarshan, Mukund Nagar, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411037 Pan: Aafhv6744K

capital gain for A.Y. 2006-07 in view of provisions of section 45(2) of the Act. 4. Without prejudice to above grounds, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that the amount received by the appellant are eligible for deduction u/s 80IB(10). 5. The appellant denies his liability to pay interest

NANASAHEB BHAGAWAN SASAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

capital gains on sale of land is shown in the IT'R of assessee and his son Mr. Amit Sasar in ratio of 1:1 and paid the tax liability due thereon." 2.1 Thereafter, intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act was issued by the Ld. Assessing Officer/Central Processing Centre [(“AO”)/(“CPC”)] on 27.02.2023 wherein the Ld. AO/CPC considered

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

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

234C etc. Prays\nto cancel the same.\n7) Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional grounds,\nsubmit additional evidence and / or during or pending proceeding.\nAdditional Ground\nIncome Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Pune has erred is passing Order u/s\n143(3) without having Pecuniary Jurisdiction.\nAppellant prays to declare the said Order as bad in law being without

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

SHIVENDRA NAGOJIRAO PATANKAR,(HUF),,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(2),, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeal of the assessee as well as the Cross

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.260/Pun/2018 िनधा!रण वष! / Assessment Year : 2014-15

234C is not justified.” Cross Objections by Revenue : “1. On the facts and circumstances relating to addition of Rs.81,00,000/-, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the same u/s.69 instead of section 68 of the IT Act which was rightly done by the AO. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case