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.

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

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

gains of business or profession" The language used in Section 37(1) was "laid out or expended for the purpose of the business or profession and not "laid out or expended for the purpose of making or earning such income and set out in section 57(iii). The words in Section 57(iii) being narrower, contended the revenue, they cannot

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

gains of business or profession\" The language used in\nSection 37(1) was \"laid out or expended for the purpose of the business or\nprofession and not \"laid out or expended for the purpose of making or earning\nsuch income and set out in section 57(iii). The words in Section 57(iii) being\nnarrower, contended the revenue, they cannot

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

sections 48 to 55 in respect of any capital asset (other than a short-term capital asset) is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any, as arrived at under a similar computation made for the assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being

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

sections 48 to 55 in respect of any capital asset (other than a short-term capital asset) is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any, as arrived at under a similar computation made for the assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being

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

sections 48 to 55 in respect of any capital asset (other than a short-term capital asset) is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against the income, if any, as arrived at under a similar computation made for the assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being

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

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. On consideration, the CIT(A) quantified the total brokerage expenses to the tune of Rs.27,65,500/- only. He has further opined that the said expenses cannot

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

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

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 57(iii) were satisfied by the Appellant. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the expenditure of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was in the form of loan advanced was given wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest/income entailing deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. (d) The CIT(A) erred

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 57(iii) were satisfied by the Appellant. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the expenditure of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was in the form of loan advanced was given wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest/income entailing deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. (d) The CIT(A) erred

KAVITA MANDAR BHAGWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(4),, PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Laliet Kumar

section 57(iii) were satisfied by the Appellant. (c) The CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the expenditure of Rs. 15,00,000/- which was in the form of loan advanced was given wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning interest/income entailing deduction u/s 57(iii) of the Act. (d) The CIT(A) erred

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

capital expenditure, and, therefore, it could not have been treated to be an expenditure incurred within the meaning of Sec.57(iii). (iii) In the case of Moody (Supra) dealing with the language of Section 57(iii) the Supreme Court observed: "It is true that the language of section 37(1) is a little wider than that of section 57

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

BHAGWAN RAGHUNATH PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3),, PUNE

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

57,239/-. In response to the notice u/s. 142(1) & 143(2) the Assessee stated before the Assessing Officer that, out of the total consideration on sale of agricultural land situated at Survey No.67 at Kharadi Pune on 06.08.2011, he and his wife Latabai pathare had received consideration of Rs. 50,00,000/-. As there was a difference

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gain on sale of land as the said land was urban land not utilized for agricultural purposes for the last five years.‖ 3. Shri Satish Chauhan appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with his brothers had acquired agricultural land comprising in S. No. 247/3, 250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gain on sale of land as the said land was urban land not utilized for agricultural purposes for the last five years.‖ 3. Shri Satish Chauhan appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with his brothers had acquired agricultural land comprising in S. No. 247/3, 250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

capital gain on sale of land as the said land was urban land not utilized for agricultural purposes for the last five years.‖ 3. Shri Satish Chauhan appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee along with his brothers had acquired agricultural land comprising in S. No. 247/3, 250, 251/1, 251/2, 251/4, 251/6, 251/8, 252/1, 252/2, 253/1, 253/2