DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CITY CORPORATION LTD.,(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S AMANORA FUTURE TOWERS P LTD), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vs. M/S. City Corporation Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Earlier Known As M/S. Amanora Pune Future Towers Pvt. Ltd.,), 917/9A, City Chambers, F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411004 Pan : Aakca3074H Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. A return was filed declaring total income of Rs.26.93 crore. The assessee reported certain international transactions and Specified Domestic transactions (SDTs) in Form No. 3CEB. The Assessing Officer

AMANORA FUTURE PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vs. M/S. City Corporation Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Earlier Known As M/S. Amanora Pune Future Towers Pvt. Ltd.,), 917/9A, City Chambers, F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411004 Pan : Aakca3074H Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. A return was filed declaring total income of Rs.26.93 crore. The assessee reported certain international transactions and Specified Domestic transactions (SDTs) in Form No. 3CEB. The Assessing Officer

SMT. VIMAL BABURAO JADHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1710/Pun/2014 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

delay of 121 days is condoned and the case is proceeded to be heard on merits. 3. The assessee has filed grounds of appeal as well as additional grounds of appeal. The assessee has also filed an application praying for admission of additional ground based on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court of India in the case

SURESH DATTATRAY GURAV,BAVDHAN PUNE vs. ITO WARD 13(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2172/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Suresh Dattatray Gurav, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.5, Mangesh Garden, S Ward-2(3), Nashik. Bavdhan Khurd, Mulshi, Pune – 411021. Pan: Aaypg3217D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshal Nasikkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ratnakar Shelake – Add.Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Year 2015-16; dated 23.11.2021. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the request for condonation of delay made by the appellant in the appropriate

RAMSING HIMMATSING RAJPUT,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.601/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ramsing Himmatsing Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Rajput, Plot No.17, Usha Bunglow, Near Seven Heven Hotel, Behind Lotus House, Chetna Nagar, Nashik- 422009. Pan : Adrpr2780A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs. 14,25,000 By Taxing The Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.22,25,000 & Actual Sale Consideration Of Rs.8,00,000 Without Appreciating That The Impugned Land Located Near River Bank Was Vulnerable To Floods, It Was Situated Near Cremation

section 50C (2) and that the AO has erred in not considering cost of land sold while calculating short term capital gain. 6.1 The AO in the assessment order noted that the assessee had sold an immovable property at Rs. 800000/- whose guideline value was Rs. 2225000/- for the stamp duty purposes. The AO issued the notices but no compliance

SMT. AMENABATUL,,NANDED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

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

condone the delay of 04 days. 3. We note that this appeal was instituted on 22-03-2016 and on scrutiny our Registry fixed the hearing on 01-03-2018 and intimated the said date of hearing to the assessee vide Registered Post. We note that the appeal was adjourned from time to time till today for non-appearance

VIJAY BALBHIM PISE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 313 days and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT Appeals (NFAC) grossly erred in not annulling the assessment order as passed by Ld. AO without obtaining or in the absence of valuation report

MR SANJAY RUPACHAND TATHED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

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 has not filed his return of income for the impugned assessment year. Information was received from the ACIT, Ahmednagar that the assessee has sold an immovable property at S.No

M/S SEVEN STAR DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.598/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Seven Star Vs. Ito, Ward-6(2), Pune. Developers, S.No.14/1/2/3, Shop No.2, Shubham Residency, Dhayari, Pune-411041. Pan : Accfs1198P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. R. Chandrakar Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 24.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 26.05.2022 : आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-4 Pune’S Order Dated 26.02.2020 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-4/Ward-6(2),Pune/177/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. It Emerges At The Outset That Instant Appeal Suffers From 378 Days Delay In Filing. I Find That The Cit(A) Has Passed His Lower

condone the impugned delay neither intentional nor deliberate. 3. Coming to the assessee’s former substantive ground that both the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in making section 43CA addition of Rs.12,20,150/-, Mr. Desai could hardly dispute that the same represents less than 10% difference between the actual sale price

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

condone the delay of 269 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication in light of judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated

NARAYANSINGH PATIL,BHUSAWAL vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-2, NASIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.32/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Naryansingh Dongarsingh Patil, The Principal Khalchi Galli, Near Motha Maruti Vs Commissioner Of Mandir Sakari Deepnagar, Income Tax-2,Nashik. Bhusawal – 425307. Pan: Bglpp 3996 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ms. J R Chandekar – Ar Revenue By Shri M. M. Chate –Dr Date Of Hearing 30/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Isdirected Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-2, Nashik, Dated 30.03.2020For The A.Y. 2015-16 Under Section 263 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Pr. Cit Was Not Justified In Holding The Assessment Order Of Pr. Cit-2, Nashik As Erroneous & Prejudicial To Interest The Interest Of Revenue Within The Meaning Of S. 263 Of The Act. Since On The Facts & Law S. 263 Does Not Apply The Order Passed By Pr. Cit-2 Nashik Be Quashed & Set Aside.

section 263 in not according to law enshrined in S. 263 of the Act. The same be quashed and set aside. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by CIT Nashik is not according to law when legal position is that once the provisions of S. 50C are applied then

SMT. SUNITA ASHOK KHOT,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2(5), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav, Vs. Acit, Flat No.D-406, Circle-4, Neha Co.Op. Housing Society, Pune S.No.41, Sus, Maharashtra – 411 045 Pan : Aefpj8933A Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sunita Ashok Khot, Vs. Ito, 6, Payal Apartments, Deep Society, Ward-2(5), Sanghavi Nagar, Aundh, Pune Maharashtra – 411 007 Pan : Bdbpk8696K Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits. 3. The factual scenario in the appeal of Smt. Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav is that she filed her return declaring total income of Rs.20,76,520/- comprising, inter alia, of long term capital gain. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that

SMT. SANGEETA GANPATI JADHAV,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -4, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi"नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav, Vs. Acit, Flat No.D-406, Circle-4, Neha Co.Op. Housing Society, Pune S.No.41, Sus, Maharashtra – 411 045 Pan : Aefpj8933A Appellant Respondent "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sunita Ashok Khot, Vs. Ito, 6, Payal Apartments, Deep Society, Ward-2(5), Sanghavi Nagar, Aundh, Pune Maharashtra – 411 007 Pan : Bdbpk8696K Appellant Respondent

delay is condoned and the appeals are admitted for disposal on merits. 3. The factual scenario in the appeal of Smt. Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav is that she filed her return declaring total income of Rs.20,76,520/- comprising, inter alia, of long term capital gain. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed by the Assessing Officer (AO) that

SHAILA BALWANT DAMBE,,CHIPLUN vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(3),, RATNAGIRI

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Dipak P. Ripote

section 50C(1) first and second proviso inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 2016 w.e.f. 01-04-2017 stipulating that a payment or part thereof could very well be taken as the fair market value of the capital asset, in case it is made by the specified banking channels, when the date of agreement and transferred

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE vs. SUBHASH KRISHNARAO SAPTARSHI,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

section 50C of the Income-tax Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in deleting the additions contrary to the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Bagri Impex Pvt Ltd [214 Taxman 305 (Calcutta)]. 5. On the facts

KASI VISWANATH GUPTA CHALAMCHARLA,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 2, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. In the previous occasion also, no one was appearing. Therefore, this appeal is being decided on the basis of material available on record and after hearing the Ld. DR. 4. Although

JANI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIGAD vs. DCIT, PANVEL, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

condonation of delay in filing the appeal since there is a reasonable cause on its part in not filing the appeal within the prescribed time limit as per enclosed copy of affidavit. 2] The assessee submits that the notice issued u/s 148 is bad in law since the approval obtained by the learned A.O. is not in accordance with

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

50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore and fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2.04 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of Assessing Officer. On these facts, the Hon'ble TTAT Pune Held as given below: "13. The issue which

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

50C(3) to recompute the income from long-term capital gains by taking the sale value at Rs. 1.99 crore and fair market value as on 1-4-1981 at Rs. 2.04 lakhs. On appeal, the Commissioner (Appeals) affirmed the order of Assessing Officer. On these facts, the Hon'ble TTAT Pune Held as given below: "13. The issue which