POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

81, Hon'ble Bombay High Court held in para 43 as given below: "Prior to the enactment of section 14A, where the business of an assessee was not a composite and indivisible business and the assessee earned both taxable and non-taxable income, the expenditure incurred on earning non-taxable income could not be allowed as a deduction as against

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

81 taxmann.com 108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that

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

81 taxmann.com 108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that

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

81 taxmann.com 108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that

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

section 54(1) of the Act, according to which the construction should be completed within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. He noted that in this case, the original asset was transferred on 26.07.2017 and therefore, the date of completion of the construction should be on or before 26.07.2019. Since the construction was not completed before

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

capital gain u/s 45(2). 5. The learned CIT (A) has erred in not considering and entertaining revised computation of income and additional/new claim made/submitted by assessee during appellate proceedings. To that extent, the appellate order is bad and needs to be set aside. 6 6. The learned CIT Appeals has erred in dismissing the assessee's appeal without affording

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)

81,391 as compared to the book profits at INR 27,07,96,737 offered in the return of income. 3.2 The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in not providing the Appellant with an opportunity of being heard in response to the adjustments of book profits under section 115JB of the Act during the assessment proceedings and transfer pricing proceedings, thus violating

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD),,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains of Rs.10,36,89,685/- but only allowed Rs.4,19,81,110/- which was claimed in the original return of income, by holding there is no provision in the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO. If we accept the interpretation rendered by both the authorities below, definitely, it would frustrate the object contemplated

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE vs. IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

capital gains of Rs.10,36,89,685/- but only allowed Rs.4,19,81,110/- which was claimed in the original return of income, by holding there is no provision in the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the view of AO. If we accept the interpretation rendered by both the authorities below, definitely, it would frustrate the object contemplated

ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-6, PUNE vs. SAKAL PAPERS LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

81 ITR 446, followed the Bombay High Court in Keshavji Karsondas vs. CIT 207 ITR 737, had held that an asset cannot be acquired first as a non-capital asset at a different point of time and again as a capital asset at a different point of time. There can be only one acquisition of the asset and that

KAVITA POLYMERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.52/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kavita Polymers, Vs. Acit, Central Circle- S-196, Midc, Bhosari, 2(2), Pune. Pune- 411026. Pan : Aadfk1774G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 12, Pune’S Order Dated 28.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-12/10475/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. It Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. The Assessee’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of Both The Lower Authorities’ Action Making Section 50C Addition Of Long & Short Term Capital Gains Amounting

81,84,796/-, which is a substantial difference of 66.7%. Further, the long term capital gains on the land gets reduced on account of DVO’s report from Rs. 7,34,26,203/- to Rs. 4,93,51,803/-. But the overall tax liability is enhanced greatly on account of higher short term capital gains arising on account

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE,, ICHALKARANJI vs. NIRANJAN RAJENDRA SHETE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Nilawati Neminath Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8442 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Niranjan Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Botps 0314 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Manisha Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8514 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022

gaining Rs. 90,81,153/- in one year from a meager investment of Rs.5,00,000/-. AO further relied more on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata in the form of statement recorded in respect of Sh. Dokania and his confession of the modus operandi adopted by him in making available the LTCG to beneficiaries by rigging the price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE,, ICHALKARANJI vs. NILAWATI NEMINATH SHETE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Nilawati Neminath Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8442 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Niranjan Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Botps 0314 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Manisha Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8514 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022

gaining Rs. 90,81,153/- in one year from a meager investment of Rs.5,00,000/-. AO further relied more on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata in the form of statement recorded in respect of Sh. Dokania and his confession of the modus operandi adopted by him in making available the LTCG to beneficiaries by rigging the price

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - ICHALKRANJI, ICHALKRANJI vs. MANISHA RAJENDRA SHETE,, KOLHAPUR

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.664/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Nilawati Neminath Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8442 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.665/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Niranjan Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Botps 0314 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.666/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Deputy Commissioner Manisha Rajendra Shete, Of Income Tax, Vs Mahaveer Nagar, A/P- Hupari, Ichalkalkaranji Circle, . Tal – Hatkanangale, Ichalkaranji. Dist-Kolhapur, Maharashtra – 416203. Pan: Aczps 8514 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/09/2022

gaining Rs. 90,81,153/- in one year from a meager investment of Rs.5,00,000/-. AO further relied more on the report of Investigation Wing, Kolkata in the form of statement recorded in respect of Sh. Dokania and his confession of the modus operandi adopted by him in making available the LTCG to beneficiaries by rigging the price

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RANJIT HANMANTRAO MOHITE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

81,892/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.12.05.2015 (in appeal PN/CIT(A)-3/Cir-7/666/2014-15) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

SMT . SUSHILABAI ISHWARDAS BAMB,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section 148 of the Act, dt.28.3.2016, vide her letter, dt.17.12.2016. 9. All the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal are without prejudice to one another. 3 Smt. Sushilabai Ishwardas Bamb 10. The appellant craves-leave to add, alter, amend, modify or delete any or all the aforesaid Grounds of Appeal. 3. The first issue raised in the instant appeal is against initiation

MURTUZA SHABBIR JAMNAGARWALA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

81 2 Murtuza Shabbir Jamnagarwala Are equal to 8100 sq.mtr (equal to 2 Acres) on 08-12-2007 to one Mr. Dhanraj Malchand Rati, a Builder and Developer. The assessee computed its share of capital gain at Rs.27,79,450/-. The said amount of capital gain was claimed as exempt u/s.54B(1) of the Act on the ground that

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

gains in the long term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. It was held that in absence of an express provision contained in these sections that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only, any such interpretation were to be placed, it amounts to Court introducing the said

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

gains in the long term specified asset then she would be entitled to the benefit mentioned in the said section. It was held that in absence of an express provision contained in these sections that the investment should be in the name of the assessee only, any such interpretation were to be placed, it amounts to Court introducing the said