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

57,78,000 duty & etc. (iv) Amount deposited in capital Rs.68,56,000 gain A/c (v) Exemption claimed Rs.2,26,33,135 g) The above facts clearly show that Appellant has claimed deduction u/s 54 of Act and not u/s 54F of Act as held and disallowed by the AO. h) Appellant has submitted all the bills/vouchers regarding Cost

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)

57,47,041/-. 3.1 Ld.AR relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-I Vs. Reliance Energy Ltd., [2022] 441 ITR 346 (SC) dated 28.04.2021. 9 Submission of ld.DR : 4. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue submitted that Assessee had not claimed deduction on Income from Other Sources and Capital Gains under section

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

57 or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A other than the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 80CCD or section 80JJAA; (ii) without set off of any loss, - (a) carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause

SANDHYA SURESH DAHIVELKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

section 142A of Income Tax Act.” 4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen widow lady, filed her Return of Income on 27-06-2017 declaring total income at Rs.15,24,570. In this Return of Income, appellant has shown capital gain on account of sale of Residential House situated at Nigdi, Pune

VYANKATRAO PANDURANG PATIL,LATUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1386/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, V Dy.Commissioner Of Mauli Chembers, Above Mauli S. Income Tax, Circle, Jewellers, Yashwantrao Chavan Latur. Complex, Main Road, Latur. Maharashtra – 413512. Pan: Abjpp6387P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 23.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

gain of Rs. 64,57,154 offered in computation of total income is with respect to rural Agricultural land not fiiting into definition of Capital Asset as per section

SHRIRAM SAHADEV RAWOOL,SINDHUDURG vs. ITO, WARD-1, KUDAL, KUDAL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Shriram Sahadev Rawool Ito, Ward – 1, Kudal At Post Parule, Near Vetoba Vs. Temple, Vengarle, Sindhudurg, Maharashtra – 416510 Pan: Ahmpr7876C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 03-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

capital gain at Rs.2,92,57,000/- and brought the same to tax as per provisions of section 112 of the Act. 5. In appeal

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

gain being 50% share. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the impounded documents found from the premises of Shri Kalpesh Jain does not mention the name

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN, NANDURBAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

gain being 50% share. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the impounded documents found from the premises of Shri Kalpesh Jain does not mention the name

MADANLAL LALCHAND JAIN,NANDURBAR vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2021-22 Acit, Central Circle-2, Madanlal Lalchand Jain Nashik Vibhare Building, Vs. Near City Police Station, Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.42/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2022-23 Madanlal Lalchand Jain Acit, Central Circle-2, Vibhare Building, Nashik Near City Police Station, Vs. Hat Darwaja Station Road, Nandurbar – 425412 Pan: Abkpj3633K (Appellant) (Respondent) : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 03-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-11-2025 O R D E R Per Bench:

gain being 50% share. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, the reasons of which have already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the impounded documents found from the premises of Shri Kalpesh Jain does not mention the name

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE vs. M/S. BILCARE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

section 80 of the Act. In other C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 words, where a return of income was filed within due date prescribed u/s 139(1) showing positive income, loss determined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on assessment in the assessment order can be carried forward and set off against the subsequent profits. 56. In the light

M/S. BILCARE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Dcit, Central Circle-2(2), Vs. M/S. Bilcare Limited, Pune. 601, Icc Trade Tower, Pune- 411016. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.334/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Bilcare Limited, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- 6Th Floor, B Wing, Icc 2(2), Pune. Trade Tower, Senapati Bapat Road, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aabcb2242F Appellant Respondent

section 80 of the Act. In other C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 words, where a return of income was filed within due date prescribed u/s 139(1) showing positive income, loss determined by the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings on assessment in the assessment order can be carried forward and set off against the subsequent profits. 56. In the light

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

capital gain’ as has been originally declared it as ‘business income’ in the books. It is clearly a case of re-classification of income and cannot be considered as under reporting or misreporting of income. 7 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 11. Though assessee has referred various decisions in the case law paper book referred (supra), I however taking note

RAMSING HIMMATSING RAJPUT,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

57,450/- by determining the income under the head Capital gain of Rs.14,25,000/-, being difference of stamp duty value Rs.22,25,000/- & the actual sale consideration of Rs.8,00,000/-as “Short Term Capital Gains”. 4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, who vide impugned order Dated 19-02-2024 partly allowed

MARUTI NIVRUTTI BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

section 50C at Rs.28,71,035/- and after allowing the benefit of cost of acquisition at Rs.15,13,246/-, computed the long term capital gain at Rs.13,57

KU. ANISHA J. THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain as taxable and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik, has erred in making addition of Rs.3,41,28,933/- under section 69 of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik, Nashik has erred in confirming

SMT. JAYSHREE JAYESH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain as taxable and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik, has erred in making addition of Rs.3,41,28,933/- under section 69 of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik, Nashik has erred in confirming

BHAVIK JAYESH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4),, NASHIK

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

capital gain as taxable and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 3. The learned Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Nashik, has erred in making addition of Rs.3,41,28,933/- under section 69 of the Act and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Nashik, Nashik has erred in confirming