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.

Section 251(2) and principle of natural justice. 10.2 There are two instances, where the Ld.CIT(A) has changed the head of the Income. In first case the Assessee offered the sale of land as Capital gain

SHRI GANESH RAMCHANDRA MORE,PANVEL vs. ITO, WARD-9(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Capital Gains of Rs.27,00,000/- in the Assessment Order duly confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in the Appellate Order passed dated 25/09/2025 be deleted.” 4. The appellant has also raised the following additional ground of appeal by filing an application dated 05.02.2026 :- “1. On the facts in the circumstance of the case and in law, CIT(Appeal

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

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

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]

capital gains would be chargeable to income tax in the previous year in which the construction of the project was completed and certificate of completion of whole or part of the project was issued by the competent authority. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, erred in not appreciating that

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

251 CUP TNMM (finished goods) 3. Purchase of Non-clonable ID tags, 24,73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

251 CUP TNMM (finished goods) 3. Purchase of Non-clonable ID tags, 24,73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other

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

capital gain and offered it to tax. He also submitted that reclassification of income cannot be made liable for penalty and further it is a bonafide case and there is no concealment of particulars of income. He further submitted that even on legal ground in absence of specifying sub-clause 270A(9) of the Act initiation and levy of penalty

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

Capital Gain at Rs.19,02,350/-. 5. Ld.Assessing Officer(AO) has mentioned that Assessee has not filed details during assessment proceedings. Aggrieved by the assessment order, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). 6. Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on account of non- compliance. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(A), Assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal

MR. GIRISH KISANDAS MEHTA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 9 (3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

capital gain of Rs.58,00,000/- on sale of two immovable property and addition of Rs.92,665/- towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80C of the IT Act. 4 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC raising only grounds on merits. Since the assessee remained absent

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

SUNDARARAMAN JAYARAMAN IYER,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1390/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19

capital gains by bringing unaccounted money into the book in the form of sale consideration of shares of M/s. Anuh Pharma Ltd. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution without entering into merits of the addition. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

SACHIN PANDURANG ALHAT ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), 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.8/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Pandurang Alhat, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.202, Bld No.P6, A S Ward-10(2), Pune. Wing, Gandarwanagari, Pune – 412501. Pan:Ahepa6396E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & Mrs. Arrchena Sheety Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 05.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Appellant Has Not Been Duly Represented By His Iip In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & Have Again Not Been Duly

Capital Gains. 5. The Appellant prays for restoring the matter back to the 10 for proper verification of Evidence available with the Appellant with merits. Because the Appellant should not be suffering on account of reasonable opportunity for failure of his Authorized Representative & Justice should prevail & Appellant should not suffer due to fault & negligence of his Legal Representative. ITA No.8/PUN/2025

BALU VITHAL PAWALE,PUNE vs. ITO WD- 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 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.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

gain of Rs. 53,00,000/- being entire amount received on sale of property while passing ex-party order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act dated 27/03/2022 by the AO. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not followed principle of natural justice and dismissed the appeal after providing 3 opportunities only without examining the nature of land, without considering

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

251/- as depreciation on goodwill as there was no goodwill\nappearing in the books of amalgamating company prior to the\namalgamation. Further, the AO has also held that as per the provisions of\nSection 47 of the Act, when the merger qualifies as amalgamation, there\nwould neither be capital gains nor depreciation on goodwill. The AO had\ncited various Judicial

RATILAL KARMSHI PATEL,SATARA vs. ITO WARD 1, SATARA

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1399/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ratilal Karmshi Patel, V The Income Tax Officer, D-70, Midc, Taswade, S. Ward-1, Satara. Umbraj, Taluka Karad, District Satara – 415109. Maharashtra. Pan: Abppp6230R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Aditya Ramchandran – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 16/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 10.03.2025 For A.Y.2022-23, Emanating From The Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144B Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

capital gains of 1,17,41,327 arising on account of the difference between the stamp duty value and the actual consideration received upon sale of the property by the appellant. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, vary and/or withdraw any or all the above grounds of appeal.” 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that

SIDDHARTH PANDARINATH BHADALE,PUNE vs. ITO, PNE-W-(58)(91), PUNE

Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

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

Section 251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as is evident from

BHUSHAN RADHAKISHAN CHECHANI,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD-3 JALNA, JALNA

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1340/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ashok Radhakrishan Chechnai, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.B-56, Sector C-N-4, S Ward-1, Jalna. Cidco, Aurangabad – 431001 Pan: Aappc5074R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanjeevkuamr B Kabra – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A), Gwalior Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 28.02.2024 For The A.Y.2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Whether The Learned Assessing Officer Is Justified In Passing The Assessment Order For The Year On The Basis Of Joint Development Agreement Without Verifying The Fact That Possession Of Plot Till Ashok Radhakishan Chechnai [A]

capital gain works out at Rs. 760665/- only. The learned Addl JCIT(Appeal) has not justified in dismissing the appeal without considering the additional grounds of appeal and submission and evidences produced. Thus, the addition confirmed by Addl JCIT(Appeal) by dismissing appeal may kindly be deleted. 3. Claim of Deduction u/s. 54F. The learned Assessing Officer is not justified