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

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

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

capital gain should be computed by taking sale consideration as full value of consideration. In case the amount of sale consideration is less, the stamp value substitutes actual consideration received or accruing. There is no dispute on such a proposition. 9. The controversy is with reference to the above extracted two provisos to section 50C(1

D.L. KHANDGE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2007-08

50C(1) as discussed above. If, on the other hand, we agree with the view point of the assessee, then capital gain on the transfer of the capital asset will be subjected to taxation in the A.Y. 2001-02 subject to its computation in accordance with the relevant provisions but without any application of section

ANIL MURLIDHAR DESHMUKH,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C, which is a deeming provision and provides for substituting the sale consideration with the stamp value or the value as determined by the DVO, as the case may be, as the full value of consideration for the purpose of calculating capital gains, there can be no warrant for ignoring the stamp value/value determined

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1, , NASHIK vs. SMT. PRIYA K. JAGTIYANI, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI KISHOR C. JAGTIYANI, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle – 1, Nashik …. Vs. Smt. Priya K. Jagtiyani L/H Of Late Kishor Chelaram Jagtiyani Office No.1, Shalimar Towers, Shalimar Chowk, Shivaji Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik – 422001 Pan: Adepj7743C

section 50C of the Act. The linked issue is vide ground of appeal No.2, wherein the CIT(A) has accepted the transaction of assessee to be business transaction and the Revenue is aggrieved since the assessee himself had offered the same as capital gains in the return of income. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee

NARENDRA SHANTIKUMAR FIRODIA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 494/Pun/2020 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Narendra Shantikumar Firodia, 5 Shobha Sadan, Aurangabad Road, Dsp Chowk, Ahmednagar – 414 002 Pan :Aabpf6158K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar. . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri C. H. Naniwadekar Revenue By : Shri Ramnath Murkunde सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 13/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 20/03/2020 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Upholding The Order Of Assessment Dt. 28/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

section 50C(1) of the Act, prescribes that where the sale consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than value adopted by the Stamp Valuation Authority for the purposes of payment of stamp duty, then the value so adopted by the Stamp

POPATLAL MOHANLAL CHORDIA,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on technicalities

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 781/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2008-09

1 Capital gains according to section 50C 15,97,820 2 Capital gains not offered for taxation 27,20,215/- 3 Capital

M/S GOYAL DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Goyal Developers, The Acit, 1, Business Embassy, V Circle-2, Pune. 1205/3/3, J.M.Road, S Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. Pan: Aajfg5666P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/05/2024 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.2015-16 Dated 08.12.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That There Was Marginal Difference Between The Sales Consideration Shown By The Appellant & The Value Adopted For Payment Of Stamp Duty & M/S.Goyal Developers [A]

1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. 5. It is observed that assessee had raised the issue before ld.CIT(A) that for determination of the value of the impugned Flat, matter may be referred

JAYASHREE J. SHIROLE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Jayashree J Shirole, Jayvilla, 86/6B, Damle Path, Erandwane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411004 …. Pan: Acmps4316B Vs.

50C of the Act and he re-computed the income from long term capital gains on account of 1/3rd share in 89, Pimple Gurav, Pune. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions which are reproduced by the CIT(A) at pages 3 to 7 of the appellate order and the same were forwarded to the Assessing Officer

DEEPARAJE J. SHIROLE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Jayashree J Shirole, Jayvilla, 86/6B, Damle Path, Erandwane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411004 …. Pan: Acmps4316B Vs.

50C of the Act and he re-computed the income from long term capital gains on account of 1/3rd share in 89, Pimple Gurav, Pune. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions which are reproduced by the CIT(A) at pages 3 to 7 of the appellate order and the same were forwarded to the Assessing Officer

JAYRAJ J SHIROLE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Jayashree J Shirole, Jayvilla, 86/6B, Damle Path, Erandwane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411004 …. Pan: Acmps4316B Vs.

50C of the Act and he re-computed the income from long term capital gains on account of 1/3rd share in 89, Pimple Gurav, Pune. 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed written submissions which are reproduced by the CIT(A) at pages 3 to 7 of the appellate order and the same were forwarded to the Assessing Officer

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1-4-1981 at Rs. 19.29 lakhs. The assessee explained that the said property was under litigation which depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE vs. VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1-4-1981 at Rs. 19.29 lakhs. The assessee explained that the said property was under litigation which depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1-4-1981 at Rs. 19.29 lakhs. The assessee explained that the said property was under litigation which depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

1-4-1981 at Rs. 19.29 lakhs. The assessee explained that the said property was under litigation which depreciated its market value. The Assessing Officer rejected the claim of assessee and applied the provision of section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains

MAKRAND N.AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1), substituting full value of consideration with the stamp value, can be invoked only by considering the stamp value as on the date of MOU dated 07- 08-2006 and not when the date of registration for the transfer Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others was actually executed, i.e. on 05-05-2008. Thus the view taken

JAYANT N.AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1), substituting full value of consideration with the stamp value, can be invoked only by considering the stamp value as on the date of MOU dated 07- 08-2006 and not when the date of registration for the transfer Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others was actually executed, i.e. on 05-05-2008. Thus the view taken

CHANDRASHEKHAR N. AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1), substituting full value of consideration with the stamp value, can be invoked only by considering the stamp value as on the date of MOU dated 07- 08-2006 and not when the date of registration for the transfer Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others was actually executed, i.e. on 05-05-2008. Thus the view taken