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

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

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

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

THE SANGLI SALARY EARNERS CO OP SOCIETY LTD,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3 SANGLI, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2254/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Sangli Salary Earners Co V The Income Tax Officer, Op Society Ltd., S. Ward-3, Sangli. 1104 B, Harbhat Road, Main City, Sangli – 416416 Pan: Aaaat0980D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Amit Sudhir Shintre(Virtual) Revenue By Smt. Saumya Pandey Jain-Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 17/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is 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 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 27.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Read With Section 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Deduction U/S 80P(2)(A)(I) Relying On The Decision Of Totgars Co-

capital funds, on which substantial interest and administrative costs were incurred, and therefore proportionate expenditure of ₹2,46,82,059 (as per detailed working furnished) ought to have been allowed as deduction u/s 57. 8. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, substitute, delete or rescind any of the above grounds of appeal and/or to submit such further grounds

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.

2(14) of the IT Act, therefore does not attract any capital gain liable to income tax. Not being satisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act and vide assessment order dated 29-02-2024 determined income at Rs.61,10,925/- as against the income returned

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

2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) alongwith\nquestionnaire were issued and served upon the assessee asking the\nassessee to furnish certain details contained therein. The assessee\nsubmitted its reply in response to the said notice(s) which were verified by\nLd. Assessing Officer (“AO”) and placed on record. The Ld. AO noted that\nduring

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

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

2(14) of the Act, the Rural Agricultural land does not fall under the definition of Capital Asset. It was also stated that the assessee carried out agricultural activities in the said land and the income is also disclosed in the return of income filed. Purchase deed along with the distance of nearest villages around the land, population etc. were

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

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

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

2). In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 25.03.2023 passed u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Act inferred that the transaction of sale of shares of M/s. Anuh Pharma Ltd. is sham one undertaken with the purpose of availing exemption of bogus capital gains by bringing unaccounted money into the book in the form of sale consideration of shares

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

DHIRAJ RAMAN BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(3) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

capital gain, being 50% of the assessee’s share in respect of the sale of immovable property. 3. Aggrieved by the above additions, the assessee filed an before the CIT(A)/NFAC who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal in limine, without going into the merits of the additions. 4. Being aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

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

ANIL TARACHAND KADU,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1059/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 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 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

Capital Gain on sale of land, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing each and every

RAMKRISHNA CINE EXHIBITORS,PUNE vs. PNE CIRCLE 2 PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.768/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ramkrishna Cine Exhibitors, Vs. The Assessing Officer, C/O. Mangala Multiplex, Circle-2, Pune 101, Shivajinagar, Pune 411 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aalfr4229F Appellant Respondent

2. Sundry creditors as per para 5 4,92,17,750 3. Increase in the cost of 1,63,82,146 9,13,28,024 construction as per para 6 Business Income 9,78,06,881 II Long Term Capital Gains as per 5,09,16,658 para 4 Total income 14,87,23,539 Rounded