NINAD ARUN DIWAKAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1318/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ninad Arun Diwakar, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.F-98, Midc, S Acti Circle-1, Nashik. Satpur Nashik – 422007. Pan: Ahepd7516M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Ca Sarang Gudhate Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing 15/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/09/2025 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], Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 24.03.2025 For The A.Y.2022-23 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Capital Gain deposit scheme on account of non-confirmation from the State Bank of India in response to notice issued under Section 133(6) of the Income tax Act. 1961 ("the Act") and presuming arbitrarily Certificate issued by State Bank of India as Self-made without any contrary evidences on record iii) That Appellant had very much discharged his duty

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

250/- as long term capital gain arising in the hands of the assessee in the relevant AY 2014-15. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee in his submissions dated 14.11.2023 stated as under : “Ground No 6, 7, 8 & 9 : During the financial year 2013-14, the appellant assessee entered into a compromise agreement with Agarwal Gupta Associates & Agrawal family

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

Capital Gain to the total income of Rs. Nil returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal by observing as under : “6. Decision:- During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant

SHRI TUSHAR JAGMOHAN KAMTHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviand Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.56/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Shri Tushar Jagmohan Kamthe, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.6, Shiv Complex, V Ward-14(4), Pune. Kondhwa, Pune – 411048. S Pan: Amepk 2042 C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 01/11/2022 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)-9, Pune Dated 15.10.2019For The A.Y. 2013-14Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Learned A.O. Erred In Not Treating The Land As Agriculture Land By Disregarding Appellant’S Contention & Thereby Further Erred In Denying Exemption Claimed U/S 54B For Sum Of Rs.55,46,892/-. Your Appellant Prays For Appropriate Relief.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Sold A Land Along His Family Members Admeasuring 80 H.75R Situated At Yewlewadi, Tal.

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “the Act”). The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law the learned A.O. erred in not treating the land as agriculture land by disregarding appellant’s contention and thereby further erred in denying exemption claimed

RAMDULAR JAMNAPRASAD SAHU,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-14, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu, The Deputy 215, Hadapsar, Shimpi Ali V Commissioner Of Income Circle-14, Pune – 411028. S Tax, Circle-14, Pune. Maharashtra. Pan: Adips 7528 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte - Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/10/2023 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(Appeal)[Nfac] Dated 08.06.2023Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16; Emanating From Order Of The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 18.10.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu [A]

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16; emanating from order of the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 18.10.2017. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : Ramdular Jamnaprasad Sahu [A] “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the lower Authorities have erred

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

250(6) of the Act, thereby the order is void-ab-initio 4. Ground No. 4 - Non consideration of application filed by the Appellant under section 270AA of the Act 4.1 Without Prejudice to above grounds and merits of case, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the penalty order passed by the learned AO without appreciating that

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 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)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

gain is subjected to a 'nil' or nominal rate of tax. The advantage for manipulative taxpayer is that he can launder such sale receipts through payment of no lax." ITA No.78/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap Vs. ACIT, Circle-3, (A) SEBI has recently barred more than 250 entities, including individuals and companies, from the securities market

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

6% of such long term capital gain on adhoc basis. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: Search material in case of Mr. Dilip Kotecha Date of search – search – 9/8/2011 Search Asstt Date Particulars Qty. Rate Amount materia Order l Page Page No. No. 20 29.11.10 Dellip Kotecha 25,000 154.43 38,60,850 20 1.12.10 Dellip

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2, 253/3, 253/4, 271/3, 274, 275, 276/1, 276/3 and 282(19) situated at Village Tuta, Tal. Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur. The assessee had purchased the abovementioned land in the Financial Year 1990-91. The land of the assessee was acquired by State Government for Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA). During the period

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2, 253/3, 253/4, 271/3, 274, 275, 276/1, 276/3 and 282(19) situated at Village Tuta, Tal. Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur. The assessee had purchased the abovementioned land in the Financial Year 1990-91. The land of the assessee was acquired by State Government for Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA). During the period

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2, 253/3, 253/4, 271/3, 274, 275, 276/1, 276/3 and 282(19) situated at Village Tuta, Tal. Abhanpur, Distt.-Raipur. The assessee had purchased the abovementioned land in the Financial Year 1990-91. The land of the assessee was acquired by State Government for Naya Raipur Development Authority (NRDA). During the period

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

250 enables the Commissioner (Appeals) to accept the additional evidence in appropriate cases, which power has been preserved by sub rule (4) of rule 4-6A also. In the instant case, proof of construction expenditure is proved & genuineness of the expenditure incurred has also been established. Kindly also find enclosed a copy of the bank statement i.e. a) Saraswat

D vs. DISHTI INDUSTRIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.1277/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 वष"

6. At the time of reaching the settlement with the vendor's the assessee's suit was pending before the Civil Judge Senior Division , Pune and SLP was pending before the Supreme Court; 7. The compensation of Rs. 4,84,34,491/- received from the vendor's is therefore for withdrawal of all litigation i.e suit pending before the Special

SANTOSH KRUSHNA GHULE,SATARA vs. ITO, WARD-5, SATARA, SATARA

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.461/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Krushna Ghule, V The Income Tax Officer, 165/9, Sahu Nagar, Godolo, S Ward-5, Satara. Satara – 415001. Maharashtra. Pan: Ayopg3325J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 20/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.01.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Granting Him Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard & The Impugned Order Deserves To Be Set Aside. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit(A), Nfac, Erred In Not Appreciating That The Ld Ao Had Assessed An Amount Of Rs.53,24,743/- As Long Term Capital Gains Without Santosh Krushna Ghule [A]

250 square feet as consideration and the same was receivable in future. The Ld CIT(A) ignored the settled law that the assessee caused improvement upon the property and retained substantial portion thereof for self use. The working of capital gains was incorrect. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A), NFAC

RAJESH BALRAM SINGH ,PUNE vs. ACIT , PUNE

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

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

capital gain and exemption under section 54F. 7. The impugned orders suffer from violation of the principles of natural justice as the appellant never received effective opportunity of being heard. 8. The appellant craves leave to add modify or withdraw any grounds.” 3 ITA No.2962/PUN/2025, AY 2016-17 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the non-compliance to the notices

NAROTTAM ATMARAM WARDE,RAIGAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3139/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Narottam Atmaram Warde, V The Income Tax Koproli, Saral, Alibag, Dist- S Officer, Raigad – 402209. Panvel. Pan: Abypw5023A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Ronak Jain Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 29/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 09/02/2026 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.2012-13 Dated 08.08.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 13.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Leamed Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Erred In Interpreting Law & Facts In Dismissing The Appeal For Non-Prosecution

6) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The learned authorities erred in treating the land sold as a capital asset and, despite the land being rural agricultural land not falling within section 2(14) of the Act. Merely because grass ("Gavat") was grown does not alter the agricultural character of the land, and the addition

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated December 13, 2024 for the AY 2015-16 ('the order') by the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi ('Ld. CIT(A)'), your appellant presents the following grounds of appeal, which are without prejudice to each other\n1.\nIn the facts of the case

SUVARNA KIRAN CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1785/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

capital gain. 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution, without discussing anything on merits. 7. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. We find the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is exparte