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

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

capital gain disclosed by the appellant. d. The addition to the total income of the appellant is made only on assumption and presumption without pointing out any material or corroborative evidence. 3. The Learned CIT(Appeals), Pune has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition by forming an incorrect opinion on following facts : a. That the appellant

RAMESH G PORWAL,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

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

section 111A for transactions entered into after 01.10.2004 i.e. the date on which Chapter VII of the Finance Act 2004 came into force. There are certain other issues, as pointed out by the Assessing Officer, which should not be lost sight of and are relevant for deciding the issue. The appellant has taken full advantage of business losses

SHIVANAND MAHADEOAPPA OPLE,,BEED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, BEED

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, The Income Tax Officer, Mangalnath Colony, Gajanan Vs Ward-1, Beed. Krupa Niwas, Beed Road, Malalgaon – 431131. Pan: Aahpo 1059 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 05.04.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 5/12/2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, It May Please Be Held That The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Is Null & Void Since The Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings & Notice U/S.274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Both Are Without Proper Application Of Mind. - Rs.1,56,101/- 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty On The Capital Gain Amount Of Rs.7,80,508/- Arose Due To Difference Between Indexed Cost Of Acquisition As On 01/04/1981 Allowed By The Ao In Assessment As Compared To That Finalized In Appeal By Cit(A) On Basis Of Valuation Done By Dvo. The Said Penalty May Please Be Deleted. Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople [A]

Section 50C --------- Rs.1,46,25,000/- Index Cost of acquisition as on 1/4/81 Rs. 21,88,454/- Long Term capital gain Rs.1,24,36,546

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

gains shall be computed, by deducting from the full value of the consideration received or accruing 5 as a result of the transfer of the capital asset the following amounts namely:- (i) Expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively in connection with such transfer (ii) The cost of acquisition of the asset and the cost of any improvement thereto. The assessee

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

KAY POWER AND PAPER LIMITED,SATARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains of Rs. 52,91,606/ The non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- remains unexplained as the assessee has not submitted any satisfactory explanation regarding options derivative reversal trades transactions by which assessee gained non-genuine profit of Rs. 2,67,66,250/- for the year under consideration. The assessee has filed return of income

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

PATEL GOYAL ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.132/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Patel Goyal Associates, 501, Fortune House, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune-411004. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aahfp0519N …. Vs. Ito, Judicial (Hq), …. ""यथ" / Respondent Pune. अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Kailash Agarwal ""थ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24.01.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 20.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-3, Pune Dated 24.11.2015 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. Disallowance Of Interest Of Rs.29,65,196/- U/S 57(Iii) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Interest U/S 57(Iii). 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Interest Paid Ought To Have Been Allowed U/S 57(Iii). For That Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That When The Learned A.O. Has Recorded A Clear Cut Finding In The Assessment Order & Affirmed The Position Taken By The Appellant In Return Of Income That When Interest Is Not Claimed & Also Not Allowable U/S 36(1)(Iii), It Has To Be Allowed U/S 57(Iii). 3. For That In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That When Borrowed Funds Were Not Required For Business Purposes Due To Availability Of Surplus Funds In Regular Business, Interest Is Paid Only To Earn Interest Income & Hence Interest Cannot Be Disallowed U/S 57(Iii).

546/- in the order of CIT(A) from the order of A.Y. 07-08) that means it cannot form part of section 57(iii). For that it is submitted that allowability depends upon quality of expenditure and not on payees’ status and therefore CIT(A)’s order is erroneous. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming inconsistent stand

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. NAGPAL LANDMARKS,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Anil Chaturvedi Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

546 from Dev Exotica Project. 1.2 The assessee's Profit & Loss Account included interest expenses of Rs.117,43,813 (on borrowings of Rs.7.52 crores from three banks, used for purposes of business) and interest income of Rs.77,12,931 (on advances of Rs.6.14 crores to two related parties). 3 A.Y.2010-11 1.3 1n the computation of income enclosed with the return