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

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:

74,175/- on account of enhanced capital gain. 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,35,09,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B and Rs.64,10,860/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. He further held that the assessee is eligible for telescoping benefit

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:

74,175/- on account of enhanced capital gain. 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,35,09,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B and Rs.64,10,860/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. He further held that the assessee is eligible for telescoping benefit

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:

74,175/- on account of enhanced capital gain. 7. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.2,35,09,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment u/s 69B and Rs.64,10,860/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. He further held that the assessee is eligible for telescoping benefit

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,JALGAON vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2011-12

74,12,843.79 181.85 5,36,24,713 14 As per appellant, all the members who have purchased and sold the shares of S.V. Electricals had disclosed the Long Term Capital Gain in their respective returns and also claimed exemption u/s 10(38) of the Act. As per appellant, all the members who have purchased and sold the shares

RAMESHWAR RAMGOPAL GOUD,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

74,050/- as against the income returned by the 3 assessee at Rs.1,95,670/-. The above assessed income includes long term capital gain of Rs.16,78,378/- and unexplained cash credit of Rs.2,20,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

74,53,736/, ignoring the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Others 204 ITR 63i(SC), the agricultural land sold for non- agricultural purpose cannot be exempt for capital gain tax.” 9. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

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

gains, being generated on account of sham transaction. 5. The amount of capital loss has been adjusted by the assessee against business income. Assessee is one of the beneficiaries of this arranged Sham Transactions and its claim of dividend income and business loss is required to be disallowed / taxed accordingly as per computation as under: Particulars Amount (in Rs.) Redeemed

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

74,48,078/- is claimed as exempt. The assessee firm has relied on section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act and CBDT Circular N. 36/2016 dated 25-10-2016. 6.6 During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed the following points: a. The Firm is trading in business of sale and purchase of plot. b. The plots acquired by land acquisition authority

LAXMAN BHAU PAWALE,AT POST PIRANGUT MUKAIWADI PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2.4 RANGE CODE 53, PUNE SWARGET

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16 Laxman Bhau Pawale Ito, Ward 2.4, Range At Post Mukaiwadi Code 53, Pune Vs. Pirangut Taluka Mulshi, Pune – 412115 Pan: Bzlpp3421M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dinesh Sudam Kudale Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

74,17,200/- as undisclosed capital gain. Since the assessee has not complied to the various statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC rejected the various evidences filed before him in shape of 4 additional evidence in absence of any application made under Rule 46A and thereby sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer

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

74(1) except when the loss has not been C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 determined in pursuance of return of income filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving the identical facts

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

74(1) except when the loss has not been C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 determined in pursuance of return of income filed in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (3) of section 139. 55. The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nalva Investments Ltd. in ITA No.822/2005, judgment dated 07.08.2020 in a case involving the identical facts

VIKAS BHAGOJI SHINDE,PIMPRI PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(4) AKURDI , NIGDI PRADHIKARAN

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1879/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vikas Bhagoji Shinde, Vs. Ito, Ward-8(4), Akurdi. 517/2496, Akshay Hsg Society, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri- 411018. Pan : Adyps0967P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai : Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Authorities Below Erred In Making & Confirming The Addition Of Rs. 3050000 U/S 56(Vii)(B) Of The Income Tax Act When The Amount Paid To The Seller As Well As To Others For Cancellation Of Deeds Of This Property Is More Than The Market Valuation. The Addition Made On This Account Be Deleted & Just & Proper Relief Be Granted To The Assessee In This Respect.

capital gain. The addition made on this account be deleted and just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 3) The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee

M/S WATERFRONT HOUSING & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Waterfront Housing & Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Pune. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajyog Creations Apts, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aaacw9020F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 48(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act From The Long Term Capital Gains, In Respect Of The Indexed Cost Of Interest Paid For The Acquisition Of The House Property Sold By The Assessee, Made By The Assessing Officer By Travelling Beyond The Issue For Which This Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Is Without Jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Eared Is Not Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.24,38,826/- U/S 48(Ii) From The Long Term

Capital Gains in respect of the indexed cost of interest of Rs.18,33,363/- paid for acquisition of the house property sold by the assessee. 3. The assessee craves leave to add, to modify to delete or to amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The appellant also raised the following additional grounds of appeal

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

JAYESH VALLABH THAKKAR,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, , 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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK vs. SMITA ASHOK SONAWANE, NASHIK

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

74,53,736/, ignoring the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Smt. Sarifabibi Mohamed Ibrahim & Others 204 ITR 63i(SC), the agricultural land sold for non- agricultural purpose cannot be exempt for capital gain tax. ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified