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

section 68 without bringing on record any material or evidence to prove that the long term capital gain declared by the Appellant is an accommodation entry against which appellant paid cash. 13 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and\nsurvey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking\nentities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term\ncapital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was\ncarried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

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

section 45(2) is inconsequential. 18. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed a copy of the occupancy certificate dated 23.12.2014 and the following chart disclosing the calculation of correct capital gain on sale of flats: 11 Particulars FY 16-17 AY 17-18 (a) Sale Consideration 3,67,25,561 (b) Total FMV as on date

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

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

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and survey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

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

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

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and survey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

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

84 BSE listed penny stocks were identified after which several search and survey operations were conducted in office premises of more than 32 share broking entities who have accepted that they were actively involved in bogus long term capital gain / short term capital gain scam. He submitted that one such action was carried out in the case of M/s PFLIL

BHARATNAGAR BUILDCON LLP (FORMERLY KNOWN AS ABIL BUILDCON LLP),PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -2, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.284/Pun/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17

section 40 provides for deduction of remuneration only with reference to the book-profits computed in the manner laid down in Chapter IV-D, the sequitur which follows is that remuneration allowable to partners is to be computed with 9 Bharatnagar Buildcon LLP reference to the income chargeable under the head “Profits and gains of business or profession

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

capital gain on adhoc basis. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the following chart: Search material in case of Mr. Dilip Kotecha Date of search – search – 9/8/2011 Search Asstt Date Particulars Qty. Rate Amount materia Order l Page Page No. No. 20 29.11.10 Dellip Kotecha 25,000 154.43 38,60,850 20 1.12.10 Dellip Kotecha

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

84,066/-. The reason recorded by the Ld. AO for reopening of assessment is that the assessee has claimed exemption u/s 54B but at the same time failed to adhere to the provisions of section 63 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code. The assessee sold the agricultural land to a person who intended to use it for non-agricultural purposes

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

84,280/- (Rs.1,07,29,000/- – Rs.41,44,720/-). Thereafter, ld.CIT(A) also 4 Archana Prashant Date gives the benefit of section 54 of the Act for the investment in another residential house which in this case is of new flat purchased at Rs.75,04,825/-. Since the cost of new flat is more than the net capital gain

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

84,79,495/-. While doing so, the TPO had rejected the CUP method as the most appropriate method and proceeded with the benchmarking of the above transactions by adopting external TNMM as the most appropriate method. While adopting OP/OC as a PLI, the TPO proceeded to benchmark the international transactions by selecting comparables, which were selected by the assessee company

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

84,79,495/-. While doing so, the TPO had rejected the CUP method as the most appropriate method and proceeded with the benchmarking of the above transactions by adopting external TNMM as the most appropriate method. While adopting OP/OC as a PLI, the TPO proceeded to benchmark the international transactions by selecting comparables, which were selected by the assessee company

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.

section 56(vii) of the IT Act. 3 3.1 It was also found by the Assessing Officer that the assessee and one other has entered into an un-registered agreement on Rs.100/- stamp paper on 28.09.2013 for sale of above land with M/s. Automatic IT Services and Vrinda Bal for a consideration of Rs.10.00 crore. Out of this amount

MARUTI NIVRUTTI BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

84,140/- and calculated the long term capital gain for 1/4th share of the assessee adopting the amount of sale consideration as per the provisions of section

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gains by invoking the provision of Section 50C of the Act, which was clearly not applicable in the assessees' case.” 8. The similar issue has been considered by ITAT Ranchi Bench in the case of Bajrang Lal Naredi vs. ITO in ITA No. 327/RAN/2018 order dated 20.01.2020. The finding of the Tribunal in paragraph

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

Section 43CA. Thus it is held that the assessee has wrongly offered the income as capital gain. This is nothing but a device to evade tax by offering income under a head where tax liability is lower. Thus capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

Section 43CA. Thus it is held that the assessee has wrongly offered the income as capital gain. This is nothing but a device to evade tax by offering income under a head where tax liability is lower. Thus capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings

KALAVATHI DEVI SHARMA,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, NANDED, NANDED

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

capital gain to multiple entities and the financials clearly show that 8 Kalavathi Devi Sharma the company is a shell company. It was noticed that the appellant is one such beneficiary who received fictitious LTCG during the year under appeal. The Appellant did not furnish any explanation to such findings as mentioned in the impugned Assessment. 10.3. Regarding the exemption