VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

capital gains and treating the same as business income is beyond the powers conferred u/s. 251 of the Act. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. ITO [65 ITR (Trib.) 194]. However, as pointed out during the course of hearing, the facts of that

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

91, PO R C Bafna Jewellers,\n| | Nayantara, Subhash Chowk,\n| | Jalgaon – 425001\n| | PAN : AADPB9424E\n(Appellant) | | (Respondent)\n\nAssessee by : S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and\nTushar Nagori\nDepartment by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT\nDate of hearing : 12-08-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-10-2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER R.K. PANDA, VP:\n\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors\nCO Nos.2

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

91, PO R C Bafna Jewellers, |\n| | | Nayantara, Subhash Chowk, |\n| | | Jalgaon – 425001 |\n| | | PAN : AADPB9424E |\n| | | (Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\nDepartment by\n: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and\nTushar Nagori\n: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT\nDate of hearing\n: 12-08-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-10-2025\n\nORDER\nPER R.K. PANDA, VP:\n\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & Ors\nCO Nos.2

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

91, PO R C Bafna Jewellers,\n| | | Nayantara, Subhash Chowk,\n| | | Jalgaon – 425001\n| | | PAN : AADPB9424E\n| | | (Respondent)\n\nAssessee by\n: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and\nTushar Nagori\nDepartment by\n: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT\nDate of hearing\n: 12-08-2025\nDate of pronouncement\n: 27-10-2025\n\nORDER\n\nPER R.K. PANDA, VP:\n\nITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & 1560/PUN/2024

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

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

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

91,914/- u/s 54F was claimed by the assessee. During the course of re-assessment proceedings the assessee was asked to justify her claim of deduction in view of the fact that assessee had not filed the return of income within the stipulated period u/s 139(1) of the Act, had not invested the amount in Capital Gain Account Scheme

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

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

91, PO R C Bafna Jewellers, Vs. Nayantara, Subhash Chowk, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AADPB9424E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar Nagori Department by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT Date of hearing : 12-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2025 CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: ITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & 1560/PUN/2024 filed

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

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

91, PO R C Bafna Jewellers, Vs. Nayantara, Subhash Chowk, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AADPB9424E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar Nagori Department by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT Date of hearing : 12-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2025 CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: ITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & 1560/PUN/2024 filed

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

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

91, PO R C Bafna Jewellers, Vs. Nayantara, Subhash Chowk, Jalgaon – 425001 PAN : AADPB9424E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar Nagori Department by : Shri Amit Bobde, CIT Date of hearing : 12-08-2025 Date of pronouncement : 27-10-2025 CO Nos.2 to 5/PUN/2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: ITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & 1560/PUN/2024 filed

AMIT BHASKARRAO SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, , AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.78/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Amit Bhaskarrao Sanap, The Assistant A-2, N-4, Cidco, Aurangabad, Vs Commissioner Of Income Maharashtra – 431001. Tax, Circle-3, Aurangabad. Pan: Auips 4177 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 25/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/10/2022 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(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 13.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Order Of The Learned Commissioner (A), Aurangabad Confirming The Addition Of Rs.1,93.17.241/- Made By The A.O. In Computing The Income U/S 56 Instead Of Exempt U S. 10(38) Of The Act Of The Appellant Is Contrary To Law & Facts Of The Case.

91 times within 16 months and share price of MARL increased 52 times within 14 months. The share price of both these shares have increased many folds in short span of time and then again decreased substantially which has been demonstrated by the AO through graphs in the assessment order. The details of Profit for five years of both these

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located at Sindh

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

gain and also disallowed short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act, definitely, in our opinion, the AO should have allowed carry forward of differential amount under long term capital loss and for denying the same, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow carry forward the difference of amount of Rs.6

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

gain and also disallowed short term capital loss u/s. 94(7) of the Act, definitely, in our opinion, the AO should have allowed carry forward of differential amount under long term capital loss and for denying the same, in our opinion, is not justified. Therefore, we direct the AO to allow carry forward the difference of amount of Rs.6

KALU NAMDEO NANDGUDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

91 taxmann.com 199 has held that where the agreement to sell has been executed and the registered sale deed is executed at later date, the date of agreement to sell has to be considered for computing Long Term Capital Gain. 4. On the other hand Shri Sanjeev Ghei representing the Department vehemently defended the order of Commissioner of Income

AVINASH DATTATRAY MULEY,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 263 of the Act, it 6 has been mentioned that the powers of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 shall extend to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. It is undisputed fact that the matter of "Cost of Improvement claimed by the assessee for arising at Capital Gains is not a subject

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 153A of the Act, the assessee offered 50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

section 153A of the Act, the assessee offered 50% of the Agreement value i.e. Rs.85 lakhs and 100% of the cash element i.e. Rs.1.70 crores in her hand and computed the income from capital gains and ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 14 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors declared total income of Rs.2,04,91