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.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

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

50C(1) of the Act are retrospectively applicable to the instant case, we need to go back to section 48, which provides for starting the exercise of computation of capital gain by taking the full value of consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer of the capital asset. It has been noticed supra that only

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. 2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Nashik was correct in holding the transactions of the assessee as business transactions when the assessee himself had offered the same as Capital Gain in the returned of income. 3

SUBHADRA TANAJI CHAVAN,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1389/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Subhadra Tanaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.31, Suparna Niwas S Ward-2, Satara. Pawar Colony, Shahupuri, Satara – 415002. Maharashtra. Pan: Bgspc7420D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 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)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2021-22Dated 30.03.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.143(1)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 28.12.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

capital gain in terms with sub-section (3) of section 50C. Therefore, sub-section (1) to section 50C cannot be considered

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

section 50C of the Act, the AO added a sum of Rs.75,01,976/- in the total income of the assessee, being one half share of additional capital gain. The assessee’s contention that the transfer took place way back on 06-05-2000 on entering into contract and handing over the possession of the property to M/s V.S. Kolbhor

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

3) of section 50C comes into play, which states that where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted etc. by the stamp valuation authority, the value so adopted etc. by such an authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer. In other words

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

3. In the First Appellate proceedings, in connection with the additions @ Sl.No.4,6 & 7 above, the assessee challenged the penalty levied by the AO on account of capital gains amounting to Rs.56,63,568/-. The break-up is given as under : Sr.No. Heads of addition Amount in Rs. 1 Capital gains according to section 50C

SHIVKUMAR RADHESHYAM SHARMA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.749/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

capital gains on this transaction, the Assessing Officer held the asset in question is not stock-in-trade and treated the same as investment asset. Eventually, Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of Section 50C of the Act. As per 3

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]

3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section (2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to in sub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the full value of the consideration received

SATISH ZUMBERLAL FIRODIA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.669/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

50C of the Act at Rs.1.64 crore and determined the amount 4 Satish Z. Firodia of long term capital gain at Rs.1.28 crore. The assessee’s 1/5th share was computed at Rs.25,69,200/-. No relief was allowed in the first appeal. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have heard both

SUNIL HARRIRAM KRIPLANI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 50C of the Act. Against the sale consideration of Rs.32,00,000/-, the assessee computed the capital gains of Rs.67,11,768/- as per the stamp duty valuation. 5.1 Considering the same, I am of the opinion the reassessment proceedings is bad in law. Considering the relief granted to the assessee on this preliminary and legal issue

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.

section 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

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.

section 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

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.

section 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

MADHAV BHARGAV CHITALE,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against computation of capital gain in the hands of assessee and applicability of the provisions of section 50C

KAVITA POLYMERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kavita Polymers, Vs. Acit, Central Circle- S-196, Midc, Bhosari, 2(2), Pune. Pune- 411026. Pan : Aadfk1774G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 12, Pune’S Order Dated 28.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-12/10475/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Making Section 50C Addition Of Long & Short Term Capital Gains Amounting

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Case called twice. None appears at assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte. 2. The assessee’s sole substantive grievance raised herein challenges correctness of both the lower authorities’ action making section 50C addition of long and short term capital gains

KARIMKHAN SHAHNOORKHAN PATEL,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

Gains by invoking the provisions of section 50C of the Act. 8. The question whether the land was purchased as business asset or for investment as capital asset can be answered only by examining the facts, sequence of events and reading the intention of the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that prior to the present transaction of purchase

DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

3 Dilip Shantilal Jain was also noticed that the value adopted for stamp duty was worked out at Rs.2,54,87,000/-, but the assessee had taken the sale value of the property for computing capital gains in the return of income at Rs.1,65,00,000/-. The assessee was therefore, asked as to why provisions of section 50C

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

section 50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore