ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BODKE,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

Capital Gain of Rs.51,79,319/- after claiming deduction of Rs.38,11,000/- u/s. 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee was co-sharer of land admeasuring 1H 13R comprising in Gut No.239, Village: Gahunje, Taluka- Maval, Dist.- Pune. After sale of said land, the assessee invested part of his share

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -3, PUNE vs. SMT. ANDRE EICHANBAUN RAJE L/H LATE SHRI. PRAMOD P. RAJE, PUNE

248/-. An information was received from Jt. Director of Income-tax (I&CI), Mumbai that there was escapement of capital gain of Rs. 6,51,61,000/- which was not offered for taxation and therefore, after taking necessary approval from CIT (IT/TP), Pune, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued and duly served on the assessee

SHAILESH THAKSEN BANKHELE (LEGAL HEIR OF LATE. THAKSEN SOPAN BANKHELE),PUNE vs. ITO WARD 10(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.475/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shailesh Thaksen Bankhele V The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Thaksen S Ward-10(2), Pune. Sopan Bankhele), Sai Namdeo Park, Flat No.12 B-Ii, Near Mhadha Housing Society, Morwadi, Pimpri, Haveli, Pune – 411018. Pan: Agfpb8295D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sharad Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Harish Bist – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/04/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 196, Ludhiana 23.02.2024For Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

capital gain is taxable in this year. 5. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Grounds NI of Appeal at any time before or during the course of hearing of the case.” Findings & Analysis : 2. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.In this case, assessment order for A.Y.2011-12 was passed under section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Capital gains‟, interest on FDs, etc. would fall under the head „Income from other sources‟ and the amount of loss for the year and brought forward loss from sale of mutual funds would be set off in terms of sections 70/71 and 74 of the Act. 7. In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSITE GURANTEE CORP.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Capital gains‟, interest on FDs, etc. would fall under the head „Income from other sources‟ and the amount of loss for the year and brought forward loss from sale of mutual funds would be set off in terms of sections 70/71 and 74 of the Act. 7. In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE vs. MAHARASHTRA STATE CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETIES DEPOSIT GURANTEE CORP. LTD,, PUNE

In the result, quantum assessment appeals for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2017 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1492 & 1493/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Ito, Ward 5(1), Vs. Maharashtra State Co-Operative Pune Credit Societies Deposit Guarantee Corp. Ltd., Suraksha Bhawan, Plot No.9, Gultekdi, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabtm4090M Corrigendum Per R.S.Syal, Vp : This Corrigendum Is Being Issued To Correct The Typographical Mistake In The Date Of Pronouncement Mentioned In First Page Of Order. The Same May Be Read As “13.08.2021” Instead Of “13.05.2021”. (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) (R.S.Syal)पुणे Pune; दििधंक Dated : 18Th August, 2021 Gcvsr

Capital gains‟, interest on FDs, etc. would fall under the head „Income from other sources‟ and the amount of loss for the year and brought forward loss from sale of mutual funds would be set off in terms of sections 70/71 and 74 of the Act. 7. In the result, these two appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

sections 11 and 12.”Unquote. 10 Pune Mathadi Hamal and Other Manual Workers Board [A] 4.7 The above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court was followed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court and Hon’ble Karnataka High Court. 4.8 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Quest

AFSHA SHAMIM AHMED KHAN ,NASHIK vs. THE ITO WARD-1(3), NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2858/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Afsha Shamim Ahmed Khan, V The Income Tax Officer, 11, Paradise Plaza, Opposite S Ward-1(3), Nashik. Alone Point, Hotel Shingada Talao, Nashik – 422001. Pan: Azmpk3812B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 07/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08/01/2026 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] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2010-11 Dated 20.03.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Act, Dated 11.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 are separately initiated on this amount.” ITA No.2858/PUN/2025 [A] 3. Aggrieved by the Assessment Order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A), wherein Assessee has raised legal grounds. Assessee also filed a statement of fact. The Statement of facts filed by Assessee before the ld.CIT(A) is reproduced here

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

gain on sale of capital asset should be deposited before date of furnishing return of tax under section 139, in such a situation, section 139 cannot be meant only section 139(1), but it means all sub-sections of section 139 - Held, yes - [Paras 14 and 15] [In favour of assessee] ITO v. Nilima Abhijit Tannu

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

POONAWALLA INVESTMENTS & INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

248 to 250/PUN/2016 relate to abated assessments. 2. Background facts include that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of stud farm activities and it belongs to Poonawalla group of cases. There was search and seizure action on the assessee’s group of cases on 21-06-2011. These assessments were completed u/s.153C r.w.s.143

VIJAY MOHAN HARDE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.588/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

capital gains arising therefrom. Thus, invoking section 50B of the Act, he made an addition of Rs.91,43,141/-. Subsequently, a penalty of Rs.31,42,000/- was imposed on this score by the AO u/s.271(1)(c) after issuing notice u/s 274 of the Act. The ld. CIT(A), after elaborately discussing the issue, upheld the penalty. Aggrieved thereby

SHREEM CONSTRUCTION,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the are allowed

section of the Act. Law of natural justice demands that the assessee should be made aware for which charge, penalty has been levied against it so that it can prepare its defence. In both these cases, since the notices issued were vague and general in nature without mentioning the specific charge for levy of penalty, in such scenario the assessee

SHREEM CONSTRUCTION,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the are allowed

section of the Act. Law of natural justice demands that the assessee should be made aware for which charge, penalty has been levied against it so that it can prepare its defence. In both these cases, since the notices issued were vague and general in nature without mentioning the specific charge for levy of penalty, in such scenario the assessee

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

248 ITR 614 (Bombay). In the case of Abdul Mannan (supra) the assessee's land was acquired by the government. He was awarded a sum of Rs.33,80,172/- which included a sum of Rs. 13.50 lakhs as interest on additional compensation. The State Government moved to the High Court against the decision of the award given by the reference

SUGAR CANE PRODUCERS VIVIDH KARYAKARI SAH. SOCIETY LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 5(cciv) or Primary Credit Society u/s. 5(ccvi). Further, the issue is under consideration before the Honorable Supreme Court in case of Mantola Co-Operative Thrift & Credit Society Ltd. and there is no stay to the order of the Delhi High Court. 6.3 In view of the above, respectfully following the Delhi High Court decision and Supreme Court