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 143(3) dated 28/12/2016 passed by the Assessing Officer is bad in law and the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-1. Nashik has erred in confirming the same. 8. The Assessee appeals to grant any relief that may be due to the Assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961. 9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the long term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other sources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very

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)

section 80-IAB of the Act on Income from Other Sources and Capital Gains in the subsequent assessment years.” Unquote.(emphasis supplied) 3. The Ld.AR admitted that no deduction u/sec.80IAB was claimed in the Return of Income, Audit Report, on Income from Other Sources and Capital Gain. Ld.AR further admitted that no 8 deduction u/sec.80IAB was claimed before the Assessing

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

90,280/-. Therefore he held that the\nlong term capital gain would be unexplained investment/income from other\nsources and not a capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise\nthat entire transaction of purchase and sale of shares were a part of\naccommodation entry and represents unexplained investment made by\nassessee in cash to obtain an equivalent amount

ITO, NASHIK vs. ANKIT NARESH TULSIAN, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 142(3) of\nthe Act as well as the principles of audi alteram partem thereby\nresulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice.\nI also find that the AO in this case has not conducted any\nindependent inquiry to establish the veracity of information\nreceived by him from the DDIT and he has mechanically issued\nthe notice u/s.148

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

90% of the non-AE sales are in domestic market only. It deciphers that there are vast geographical differences between the AE and non-AE sales. It goes without saying that geographical locations largely impact the pricing C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 of a product and the resultant profit. Neither any PLI in respect of non- AE exports has been placed on record

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

90% of the non-AE sales are in domestic market only. It deciphers that there are vast geographical differences between the AE and non-AE sales. It goes without saying that geographical locations largely impact the pricing C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 of a product and the resultant profit. Neither any PLI in respect of non- AE exports has been placed on record

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

90 is not appropriate. The learned A 0 has also referred to the wordings of section 15-0 which uses the term 'not withstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act ..... '. In view of the above, I reject the claim of the appellant for refund of excess DOT. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is dismissed. UNQUOTE

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

90,000/- (@ Rs.750/sq ft) and received the said consideration partly in cash amounting to Rs.17,76,200/- (@ Rs.535/sq ft) and partly by cheque amounting to Rs.7,13,800/- (@ Rs.215/sq ft.) As regards the tax treatment accorded to this transaction, it may please be noted that YBT has duly disclosed the Long Term Capital Gain arising out of this transaction

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

90,67,000/- and the actual purchase consideration was Rs.1,82,91,500/-. According to the applicant the difference being Rs.7,75,500/- was less than 5% of the consideration, ITA No.147/PUN/2025 [A] no addition could be made in his case u/s 56(2)(x) of the Act. The applicant has also relied on certain case laws. 5.3.3 The Panel