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.

Capital Gain taking the sale consideration at Rs.117,31,70,040/- for two assessment years as under : AY Sale consideration disclosed in the Sale consideration for the Return of Income purpose of Section 48 r.w.s 50C 2010-11 103,40,00,000/- 115,63,94,491/- 2011-12 1

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.

Capital Gain taking the sale consideration at Rs.117,31,70,040/- for two assessment years as under : AY Sale consideration disclosed in the Sale consideration for the Return of Income purpose of Section 48 r.w.s 50C 2010-11 103,40,00,000/- 115,63,94,491/- 2011-12 1

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

31. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also placed reliance on the decision of AAR in the case of SkillSoft Ireland Ltd., In re_* (supra) with special reference to para 26, which talks of copyright versus copyrighted article. He pointed out that in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) at page 29, the phrase used is copyright rights, which

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

31. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also placed reliance on the decision of AAR in the case of SkillSoft Ireland Ltd., In re_* (supra) with special reference to para 26, which talks of copyright versus copyrighted article. He pointed out that in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) at page 29, the phrase used is copyright rights, which

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

31. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also placed reliance on the decision of AAR in the case of SkillSoft Ireland Ltd., In re_* (supra) with special reference to para 26, which talks of copyright versus copyrighted article. He pointed out that in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) at page 29, the phrase used is copyright rights, which

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

31. The learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue also placed reliance on the decision of AAR in the case of SkillSoft Ireland Ltd., In re_* (supra) with special reference to para 26, which talks of copyright versus copyrighted article. He pointed out that in DIT Vs. Infrasoft Ltd. (supra) at page 29, the phrase used is copyright rights, which

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

section 68 is called for. Since the assessee has placed the contract note, payment through cheques identifying the company whose shares were transacted, the genuineness of claim of long term capital gain should not have been doubted. We do not find merit in these contentions of the assessee in the light of the facts that there is prevalent practice

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

31 March 2021 to grant approval;\nf. The directions in Ashish Agarwal (supra) will extend to all the ninety thousand\nreassessment notices issued under the old regime during the period 1 April 2021\nand 30 June 2021;\ng. The time during which the show cause notices were deemed to be stayed is from\nthe date of issuance of the deemed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as unaccounted income under section 68. 30. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-3 Vs Ziauddin A Siddique, ITA No.2012 of 2017, dated 04-03-2022, he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

section 54(1) of the Act, according to which the construction should be completed within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. He noted that in this case, the original asset was transferred on 26.07.2017 and therefore, the date of completion of the construction should be on or before 26.07.2019. Since the construction was not completed before

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 amounting to Rs.2,57,47,042/-. Assessee relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT-I Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd.(supra) [2022] 441 ITR 346 (SC). The Dispute Resolution Panelheld that there is no variation proposed in the Draft Assessment Order with reference to Assessee’s claim of deduction under section 80IAB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

capital gain earned on said transaction could not be treated as\nunaccounted income under section 68. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble\nHigh Court read as under:\n\n\"5. We have perused the concurrent findings and on which heavy reliance is\nplaced by Mr.Sureshkumar. While it is true that the Commissioner extensively\nreferred to the correspondence

NAWAB PASHASAHEB JAMADAR,LATUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, LATUR

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

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपीऱ सं. /Ita No.731/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Global Panacea Hospital, Latur Gross Golden Jubilee, B-Block, Mahaeboob Nagar, Ambajogai Road, Latur – 413 512, Maharashtra Pan : Aaopj3902E Appellant Respondent

31,800/-. Since the benefit of depreciation was claimed by considering the construction of new building as part of the block, the AO refused to give any benefit u/s.54. The ld. 3 Nawab Pashasaheb Jamadar CIT(A) affirmed the action of the AO, against which the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard

SETH RAMDAS NATHUBHAI DHARMADAYA VISHWASTA NIDHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,(EXEMPTIONS) -1,, PUNE

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Seth Ramdas Nathubhai Dharmadaya Vs. Ito Vishwasta Nidhi, (Exemptions)-1, C/O. Shah Khandelwal Jain & Pune Associates, Chartered Accountants, Level 3, Business Bay, Plot No.84, Wellesley Road, Near Rto, Pune 411 001 Pan : Aaatr6805N Appellant Respondent

gains and similarly in ground No.6 the assessee prays for allowance of claim of unabsorbed expenses and depreciation from earlier years against the income so assessed. 3. The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee trust is registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 vide No.E1150, Pune dated 13-10-1987. The assessee is registered u/s.12A

SUN INFRASTRUCTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

31-03-2018 declaring loss at Rs.81,09,510/-. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the AO assessed the loss at Rs.73,24,305/- inter alia making addition on account of delay in payment of employee’s contribution to Provident Fund and denial of carry forward business loss for subsequent assessment year. The CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi confirmed

RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

1].—For the purposes of sub-clauses (v) and (vi), "immovable property" shall have the same meaning as in clause (cl) of section 269UA.1 90 [Explanation 2.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that "transfer" includes and shall be deemed to have always included disposing of or parting with an asset or any interest therein, or creating