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

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

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

condone the delay of 79 days. 29. The issue raised by the assessee company in the present appeal is regarding the quantum of TP adjustments made in respect of corporate guarantee. The assessee company took a plea that the transactions of providing guarantees by the assessee company to its C.O. No.14/PUN/2021 subsidiary is in the nature of shareholders activity

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

delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 Bharatnagar Buildcon LLP 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed its return declaring total income at Rs.78,29,61,960/-. The return was selected for Limited scrutiny through Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (CASS). After certain notices and compliance

DASHRATH DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 54F of the Act. I do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment order passed by the A.O.” A.Y. 2012-13 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. The grounds raised by the assessee filed along with

INDUBAI DHARMRAJ MULE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

long term capital gain disallowing the deduction claimed by the appellant u/s 54F of the Act. I do not find any reason to interfere with the assessment order passed by the A.O.” A.Y. 2012-13 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us. 5. The grounds raised by the assessee filed along with

SHARAD RAMGONDA PATIL,SANGLI vs. I.T.O, WARD-1, SANGLI, SANGLI

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

Long Term Capital Gains without allowing the deduction u/s 54F of the IT Act, 1961 on account of acquisition of a new asset out of sale consideration in absence of not producing the documentary evidence in this regard for not providing due and adequate opportunity of being heard to the appellant. The lower authorities be directed to allowing the deduction

VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

long term capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property

PRAKASH DASHRATH BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

long term capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE vs. VILAS DASHRATH BALWADKAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

long term capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property

DASHRATH KONDIBA BALWADKAR,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Acit, Circle-2, Vs. Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Pune House No.329, Near Laxmi Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vilas Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1117B Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Prakash Dashrath Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Apppb1116A Appellant Respondent निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dashrath Kondiba Balwadkar Vs. Acit, House No.329, Near Laxmi Circle-2, Mata Temple, Balewadi, Pune Pune-411045 Pan: Aqapb5784C Appellant Respondent

long term capital gain had adopted the cost of acquisition of the immovable property at Rs.1,15,99,280/- as on 01.04.1981. The AO was of the view that the cost of acquisition adopted by the assessee was excessive and hence not acceptable. He referred the matter to the District Valuation Officer (DVO) for the valuation of the property

APPASAHEB BBAURAO LONKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.888/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar 562/2, Aaryavart Society, Shivajinagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411005 …. Pan: Aagpl9688R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 4(4) Pune

delay of 417 days in filing the appeal late before the Tribunal is condoned. 3 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar 4. The only issue raised in the present appeal is in respect of computation of long term capital gains

SMT. RATNAPRABHA SATISH MUTHAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Ratnaprabha Satish Muthal, At Post Hirawadi, Panchawati, Nashik. अपीऱाथी/Appellant Pan: Buipm6016K …. Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (4), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

delay is condoned and we proceed to hear the case on merits. 4. Grounds are extracted as under:- 1] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.39,60,988/- on account of long term capital gains

SUDHA KARBHARI NAGRE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(5), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Sudha Karbhari Nagre Vs. Ito, B/29, Deepashree, Sahar Road, Ward 2(5), Andheri East, Mumbai – 400057 Nashik Pan: Aajpn3762B Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned and the instant appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 Sudha Karbhari Nagre 3. The only issue raised in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.3,78,420/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) towards Long term capital gains

NEETA DATTATRAYA TAKLE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

long term capital gain since the land was not cultivated, would not imply that the land of the assessee was also not cultivated. The Agricultural income had been shown by the assessee and having not been disturbed by the Assessing Officer, the plea of the assessee in this regard cannot be disregarded. As the land sold by the assessee

KUBER VASANTRAO KENJALE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(5), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2015-16

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 28.08.2015 declaring total income of Rs.61,72,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS under limited category. Accordingly statutory notices

PRAVIN BABANRAO TAMBE,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pravin Babanrao Tambe, Vs. Pcit, Pune-4. Sr. No.14, Shree Datta Colony, Akashwani, Hadapsar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aimpt5087G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 12.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 31.03.2021 Passed By Ld. Pr.Cit, Pune- 4 [‘Ld. Pcit’] U/S 263 Of The It Act For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ld Cit Erred In Law & On Facts In Invoking Jurisdiction Under Section 263 & Setting Aside Assessment Order For Fresh Assessment On The Ground That Assessment Has Been Framed

long term capital gain of Rs.12,66,673/-. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were also issued 3 and served upon the assessee and the case was represented by Shri Anand Birla CS duly authorized by the assessee and various details called for were furnished. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s

VAISHALI KESHAV KULKARNI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

In the result the Grounds Numbers 2, 3 and 4 raised by the assessee are allowed

delay is condoned.\nSubmission of ld.AR :\n2.\nLd.AR for the assessee submitted that CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the submission of the assessee. Ld.AR submitted Affidavit of the assessee.\n3\nITA No.540/PUN/2025 [A]\n2.1 Ld.AR pleaded that the Notice u/s.148 dated 13/04/2022 and the order is bad in Law.Ld.AR relied on the order of Hon'ble Supreme Court

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1727/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for disposal on merits. 2 Arun K. Narwade (HUF) 3. The ld. AR did not press Ground no.2 challenging the initiation of re-assessment proceedings, which is hereby dismissed. Ground No.3 challenging the granting approval for re-assessment is connected with Ground No.2. The same is also consequently dismissed. 4. The assessee

SANDHYA SURESH DAHIVELKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Sale consideration which is accepted by both Assessee and CIT (Appeal) includes consideration in respect of transfer of Land along with Building constructed on the same land (subjected capital asset) by assesse. The subjected building was constructed