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

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

SHILPA VITTHAL JADHAV,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 703 days are condoned. 5. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute ground No. 1. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.14,54,317/- on account of short term capital gain

NILESH RAJENDRA JADHAV,SATARA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

delay of 703 days are condoned. 5. The ld. AR submits that the assessee is not interested to prosecute ground No. 1. Hence, the same is dismissed as not pressed. 6. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.14,54,317/- on account of short term capital gain

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

KARIMKHAN SHAHNOORKHAN PATEL,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

delay of 278 days in filing of appeal is condoned. The appeal is admitted to be heard and disposed of on merits. 3 ITA No. 2272/PUN/2014, A.Y. 2009-10 3. The brief facts of case as emanating from records are : The assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year on 28-07-2009 declaring total income of Rs.1

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

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 was made so the AO added the entire stamp duty consideration as the income of the assessee

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

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. 147 on 24.12.2018 by accepting

CHANDRAPRABHU GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANTHA MARYADIT,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has earned aggregate interest of Rs.14,44,054/- on FDRs maintained with nationalized banks private sector banks, (the details of interest are listed at para 6.4 of the assessment order). AO was of the view that the interest income

CHANDRAPRABHU GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYADIT,,SOLAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4),, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings, AO noticed that assessee has earned aggregate interest of Rs.14,44,054/- on FDRs maintained with nationalized banks private sector banks, (the details of interest are listed at para 6.4 of the assessment order). AO was of the view that the interest income

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

short term capital gain, long term capital gain and income from other sources. During the course of assessment proceedings, in the case of Sunil D. Takle, Nashik, it was seen that Shri Sunil D. Takle, Shri Shrikant D. Takle & Neeta D. Takle, all are residents of Nashik and had sold the asset at Survey No.501/1, Nashik within

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

short „the Act‟. Heard all the assessees through their counsel Shri Deepak Sasar and the departmental represented by Shri M.G. Jasanani/DR. 2. The Revenue appeal ITA No.824/PUN/2019 raises the foregoing substantive grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reference made

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

short „the Act‟. Heard all the assessees through their counsel Shri Deepak Sasar and the departmental represented by Shri M.G. Jasanani/DR. 2. The Revenue appeal ITA No.824/PUN/2019 raises the foregoing substantive grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reference made

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

short „the Act‟. Heard all the assessees through their counsel Shri Deepak Sasar and the departmental represented by Shri M.G. Jasanani/DR. 2. The Revenue appeal ITA No.824/PUN/2019 raises the foregoing substantive grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reference made

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

short „the Act‟. Heard all the assessees through their counsel Shri Deepak Sasar and the departmental represented by Shri M.G. Jasanani/DR. 2. The Revenue appeal ITA No.824/PUN/2019 raises the foregoing substantive grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the reference made

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1) On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the AO was not legally justified in assessing the Long Term Capital Gain on account of transfer of 1/4th share in his ancestral land as transfer of the land did 2 Appasaheb Baburao Lonkar

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 arising on transfer of development rights in plot at S.No. 207/2/1, Nashik without appreciating that the said addition

RIMPLE SAXENA,PANVEL vs. ITO WARD 2 , PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2413/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rimple Saxena, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Sai Villa, Plot No.114, Panvel Flat No.102, Sector-I, Vijay Marg, New Panvel – 410 206 Maharashtra Pan : Bdjps3014H Appellant Respondent

condone the delay of 242 days in filing the appeal in the larger interest of justice and proceed for adjudication of appeal on merits. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2013-14. Based on the information available with the officer

KISHORE KASHINATH KOLI,PANVEL vs. CIT(A), DELHI

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

short term capital gain and Rs.11,27,000/- as unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 4. Since the assessee filed an appeal with a delay of 125 days before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal by not condoning