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 (2) mandates the CIT(A) to not to enhance the assessment unless reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the enhancement, if any, in the assessment is granted. In our view, this issue is now settled and the additions of this kind are unsustainable in law in view of the judgements in the caes of (i) Bikram Sing vs. DCIT

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor of Stock Exchange. The ITAT therefore

SANGEETA BASAVRAJ MANGRULE,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

64, Mayurban Colony, Shahnoorwadi Darga Road, Aurangabad PAN: AJIPM 9153 H :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. CIT Cir. 2, Aurangabad : Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 28-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2022 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s order dated

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

64,870/- Reasons for the reopening In this case information has been received through insight portal from DDIT(Inv.) Unit 3(3), Delhi through insight portal that the assessee has traded the scrips of shell company viz, M/s. Yamini Investments Co. Ltd.(YICL). This is proved to be a penny stock company listed on BSE with Script Code

M/S. CHAKRABARTY MEDICAL CENTRE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Chakrabarty Medical Centre, C-802, Palmdale, California Apartments, Nibm, Undri Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411060 …. Pan: Aabfc5809Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei

section 50 of the Act and the short term capital gain on sale of land and building worked out to ₹ 1,64

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

capital gain is taxable in assessment year 2011-12 and not in assessment year 2010-11. According to the Ld. AR , the registered deed dated 18.09.2009 is void as it is against the spirit of section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, Govt. of Maharashtra. Per contra, the view of the Assessing Officer that sale transactions entered into

RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

64 taxmann.com 219 (Bom). In the case of Balbir Singh Maini, the ITA No.1133/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwant Shinde Vs. ITO (A) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- Section 2(47). read with sections 45 and 43, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains

MR POPATRAO DASHRATHRAO SURYAWANSHI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr. Popatrao Dashrathrao Suryawanshi Ito, Ward 7(4), Pune S.No.38, Tingre Nagar, Havaldar Mala, Vs. Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015 Pan: Adhps2643F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 19-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-01-2026 O R D E R

64,823/- claimed by assessee under section 54B of the Income Tax Act 1961 against the capital gain on transfer

DINESHKUMAR RAMCHANDRA TULSYAN (HUF),,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dineshkumar Ramchandra Tulsyan (Huf) Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Aachd5953R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Sumandevi Dineshkumar Tulsyan Ito, Ward 1(5), 214B, Laxmi Niwas, Mahatma Nagar, Vs. Nashik Nashik – 422007 Pan: Ackpt1322Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

section 12A of the Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956] has clearly held that Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has been involved in the manipulation of the share price of this listed company and has manipulated so as to utilize this scrip to arrange entry of bogus long term capital gains and has subsequently restrained Shri Vijay Kumar Jain from accessing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

SMT. SUMANDEVI DINESHKUMAR TULSYAN,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(5),, NASHIK

section 12A of the Securities Contracts\n(Regulation) Act, 1956] has clearly held that Shri Vijay Kumar Jain has been\ninvolved in the manipulation of the share price of this listed company and has\nmanipulated so as to utilize this scrip to arrange entry of bogus long term capital\ngains and has subsequently restrained Shri Vijay Kumar Jain from accessing

DASHRATH DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section that the deduction can be claimed if the investment is made in any other's name. Thus the A.O. has rightly disallowed the deduction. 8. In view of the aforesaid facts, I hold that the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs.8,64,455/- on account of long term capital gain