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

1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC and the Assessing Officer have erred in confirming/making the aggregate addition and disallowances of Rs.2,89,64,823/-. 2. The learned AO and the CIT (Appeals) have erred in making and confirming the disallowance of deduction of Rs.2,89,64,823/- claimed by assessee under section 54B of the Income

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Gains\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that\nthese provisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

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

73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 8. Reimbursement of expenses 1,60,81,730 CUP TNMM

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

73,743 Other TNMM reader and applicator Method 4. Sale of clinical supplies 18,45,660 Other TNMM Method 5. Lease of PVdC Coating Machine 8,75,00,000 CUP TNMM 6. Loan Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 7. Performance Guarantee Given Nil Other Other Method Method 8. Reimbursement of expenses 1,60,81,730 CUP TNMM

SATYAM TRANSFORMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AURANGABAD vs. ITO WARD 2(3), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1239/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Satyam Transformers Private Limited, Ito, Ward-2(3), Sharadanand, Opposite Telephone Office, Aurangabad Ajabnagar, Aurangabad-431001 Vs. Pan : Aakcs4648D अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 04-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

Capital Gain to the total income of Rs. Nil returned by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee has requested for withdrawal of the appeal by observing as under : “6. Decision:- During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

73 [no return of income has been furnished or where return has been furnished for the first time under section 148]: (f) the amount of deemed total income reassessed as per the provisions of section 115JB or section 115JC, as the case may be, is greater than the deemed total Income assessed or reassessed immediately before such reassessment

DIMPLE ALNESH SOMJI,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

Capital Gains", is a loss, the assessee shall be entitled to have the amount of such loss set off against his income from any other source under the same head. 18. So, according to section 70(1) of the I.T. Act, loss from any source under any head of income can be set off against income from any other source

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

73,600/-\nRs.29,02,68,389/-\nRs.2,18,655/-\nRs.90,472/-\nRs.31,31,51,116/-\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who\nwithout admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the\nground that the assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not\npaid an amount equal

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

capital gains because these were created out of bank deposits made in the bank accounts of the assessees after the money transferred from the account of M/s. Alfa India. No telescopic benefit have been given as it was out of the source deposited in the bank accounts of the assessees. Netting of the money left have also not been considered

PARAG MILK FOODS LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.177/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Parag Milk Foods Ltd., The Assistant Awasari Phata,Village Manchar, Vs Commissioner Of Income Tal - Ambegaon, Tax, Circle-4, Pune. Dist-Pune – 411503. Pan: Aabcp 0425 G Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/06/2023 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 (Appeal)[Ld.Cit(A)], Pune-11 Dated 04.02.2022 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 26.12.2018 For A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Assessing Officer Of Making An Addition Of Rs.1,15,71,588/- On Account Of Disallowance Of Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act On The Ground That The Assessee Has Not Complied With The Conditions Which Are Necessary To Claim Deduction U/Sec.80Ia Of The Act & Failed To Furnish Any Concrete Evidence To Prove That The Parag Milk Foods Ltd., [A]

gains derived from an undertaking shall not be admissible unless the accounts of the undertaking for the previous year relevant to the assessment year for which the deduction is claimed have been audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub- section (2) of section 288, and the assessee furnishes, along with his return of income, the report

VARDHAMAN VASUNDHARA FAMILY TRUST,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.741/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2022-23 Vardhaman Vasundhara Family Trust, Income Tax Officer, S. No. 1A, F-1, Irani Market Compound, Ward – 7(1), Pune Yerwada, Pune-411006 Vs. Pan : Aactv6457E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 25-06-2025 Date Of 27-06-2025 Pronouncement :

73,730/- and claiming refund of Rs.969/- which was subsequently revised by filing a revised return of income on 26.12.2022 without there being any change in the total income earlier declared by the assessee. The return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) making an adjustment of Rs.52,20,899/- in respect

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

gains and income from other sources. Under scrutiny, notices u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act issued. In response to the said notices, the assessee filed details before the AO which is evident from para 2 of the assessment order. According to the AO, the assessee has shown gross annual value regarding office No. 801 at “Zero

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

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

capital in nature.\n\n2. On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld. CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and send the matter back to AO for verification on the issue of disallowance of write back of provision for restructured advance amounting to Rs.260

AHMEDNAGAR ZILLA GRAMSEVAKANCHI SAHAKAR PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,AHILYANAGAR vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

73,11,262.54/-\n2) Loans & Advances\nSr.No\nHead\nAmount\nParticular\n1\nLoans & Advances\n18,87,13,749.00/-\nThis amount Represent loan given to members\nof the said society.\nTotal\n18,87,13,749.00/-\nB) Deduction From total Income under chapter VI-A\na) Profit form Providing Credit facility to Members U/S 80P(2)(ai) RS 31,75,810/-\nThe assesse

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

capital gains is intended to tax the gains of assessee not what an assessee might have gained and what is not gained cannot be computed as gain and the assessee cannot fastened with the liability on a fictional income. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shivakami

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

capital gains amounting to INR 3,26,81,816 at an incorrect rate of 25% instead of 20% under section 112 of the Act and has consequently computed incorrect tax liability 7. The Lid AO has erred in computing the tax liability on income earned by the Appellant from business operations and other sources by applying at an incorrect base

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

gain from sale of TDR as exempt\nfrom tax u/s.96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and\nTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement\nAct, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).\n2. The brief facts of the case is that during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the Respondent's\ncapital account had increased by Rs.6,73

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.)  Hon'ble Amritsar Tribunal in case of Sh. Satbir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Amritsar. (Ι.Τ.Α. No.258/Asr/2022).  Hon'ble Lucknow Tribunal in case of Income-tax Officer, Barabanki v. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610 (Lucknow Trib.)  Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Roopak Jain Versus