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. 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

50C of the Act by adopting sale consideration of 2 A.Y.2007-08 Rs.64,50,000/- as determined by DVO in his valuation report. The consideration being as per agreed consideration the same be accepted. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in adopting the sale consideration as per Valuation

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

2. The Departmental appeal is time barred by 63 days. The ld. AR did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. The 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

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

2. The Departmental appeal is time barred by 63 days. The ld. AR did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. The 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

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

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 of the DVO. 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the agricultural land sold was not converted in to NA Land and in view of ITA No.32/PUN/2021 for A.Y. 2015-16 Naryansingh Dongarsingh Patil [A] this it continued to be Agricultural land and the appellant assessee was entitled to deduction under section

DNYANESHWAR MARUTI GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.36/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dnyaneshwar Maruti The Income Tax Officer, Gaikwad, Vs Ward-14(3), Pune. B-110, Salunke Vihar Road, . Oxford Village, Pune. Pan: Adtpg 0777 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For A.Y.2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 21.02.2020 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd-14( 3)/10887/2016-17, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, In Short “The Act”.

50C, applies w.e.f 01.04.2021 whereas we are in A.Y.2014-15 only. He sought to buttress the point the foregoing tolerance margin does not carry any retrospective effect. We find no merit in the Revenue’s arguments in in light of [2021] 123 taxmann.com 252 (Mum Trib) Maria Fernandes Cheryl Vs. ITO holding the foregoing proviso to be carrying retrospective effect being

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

2. Both the appeals are time barred by 87 days. The assessees have filed affidavits giving the reasons for the delay. We are satisfied with the same. The 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

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

2. Both the appeals are time barred by 87 days. The assessees have filed affidavits giving the reasons for the delay. We are satisfied with the same. The 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

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

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