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

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

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

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

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

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

gain, reopened the assessment u/s 147 of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer rejected the claim of exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act on such bogus long term capital and made addition of Rs.85,38,145/- u/s 68 of the Act. We find before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart

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

capital gains on account of trading in shares of a penny stock companies which is\nexempt u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penny stock shares have been regularly purchased and sold\nand LTCG is claimed as exempt in the return of income thereby routing her undisclosed income / into the\naccounts. In view of above, there exist

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains once again. If the AO’s argument is accepted and carry forward of losses is denied, it would not only be in violation of the clear language of the Act but would also be in clear conflict with the above scheme. Such an interpretation would result in a double jeopardy in the hands of the seller

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain would not be speculative under section 43(5).‖ In the above referred decision, the question No.3 which has been referred to the Hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain would not be speculative under section 43(5).‖ In the above referred decision, the question No.3 which has been referred to the Hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

gain would not be speculative under section 43(5).‖ In the above referred decision, the question No.3 which has been referred to the Hon’ble Third Member u/s 255(4) of the I.T.Act, 1961 for consideration was as under – ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 to 2012-13, Endurance Technologies Pvt. Ltd., ―Whether on the facts

M/S. SUNNYGOLD WINERIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.703/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

40,500/- towards land filling on dismantling of the old factory premises. In this respect, the assessee submitted before the CIT(A) that if the capital gain is considered to be taxable in assessment year 2010-11, then the same may be allowed as deductable amount during the year, since the expenditure is connected to the sale of land

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”].

capital gains accrues. The consideration having been fixed and there being no change in the terms of the JDA, there being no dispute between the appellant and the developer, the right to receive the income has already accrued to the appellant. Once the appellant has accrued the right to receive income, it becomes real income. It does not matter that

BHARATNAGAR BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ABIL BUILDCON LLP),PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.284/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain offered on sale of debentures, which was not allowable in terms of section 40(b)(v) of the Act. 7. At this

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

section 234B and 234C without considering the following facts: a. That interest was levied without giving any opportunity of hearing and without passing any speaking order at all to that effect and that the AO had erred in wrongly computing the same by applying erroneous rate. b. That the interest u/s. 234B and 234C is mandatory in the sense that

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise that entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of accommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by assessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount of bogus profit on sale of shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining