ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

disallowances and assessed income at Rs.5,54,08,500/-.\n3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A) who after considering the submissions of the assessee and also placing reliance on the decision of this Tribunal dated 19.07.2022 passed in the case of one of the co-owners, namely Shri Pravinchandra Walchand Shah accepted the assessee's contention that part

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

section 50C vide Finance Act, 2020 is retrospective in nature. 2. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1, it is submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 50C of Rs.6,15,600 without appreciating that the actual consideration received by the appellant was equivalent to the fair market value of the impugned property and the govt

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

disallowance made of Rs.1,49,910/- out of agricultural income only on the basis of land holding ignoring the fact that assessee could not produce any supporting documentary evidences with respect to the agricultural activities carried out by him and subsequent sale of agricultural produces. 12. The appellant reserve the right to alter, amend and add & modify any grounds

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES, PUNE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is allowed FOR STATISTCIAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 480/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pride Purple Properties, Pride House, 5Th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Pan: Aaifp0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; As Against First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-11, [‘Cit(A)’] Dt. 25/01/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’], For Assessment Year [‘Ay’] 2013-14, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal With The Following Grounds; “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit (A) -11, Pune In The Case Is Opposed To Establish Law & The Judicial Pronouncement.

2 which are directed against the impugned addition of ₹4,81,500/- made u/s 14A of the Act; 3.1 We find that, the appellant builder for a year under consideration had investments in various ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 8 Pride Purple Properties, ITA No.480/PUN/2022 AY: 2013-14 partnership firms which yielded to it a tax free income

VYANKATRAO PANDURANG PATIL,LATUR vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE LATUR, LATUR

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1386/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Vyankatrao Pandurang Patil, V Dy.Commissioner Of Mauli Chembers, Above Mauli S. Income Tax, Circle, Jewellers, Yashwantrao Chavan Latur. Complex, Main Road, Latur. Maharashtra – 413512. Pan: Abjpp6387P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar–Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 14/11/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 23.04.2024 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 28.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 50C for the Rs.2,15,00,000 purpose of capital gain Less: Cost of acquisition with indexation Rs.1,43,28,142 (11292856*108/852) Long Term Capital Gain Chargable Rs.71,71,858 6. It is also mentioned by the Assessing Officer that during the year, Assessee had earned Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.5,40,05,330/- and claimed deduction

M/S WATERFRONT HOUSING & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Waterfront Housing & Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Pune. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajyog Creations Apts, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aaacw9020F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 48(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act From The Long Term Capital Gains, In Respect Of The Indexed Cost Of Interest Paid For The Acquisition Of The House Property Sold By The Assessee, Made By The Assessing Officer By Travelling Beyond The Issue For Which This Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Is Without Jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Eared Is Not Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.24,38,826/- U/S 48(Ii) From The Long Term

disallowed the interest paid for acquisition of above said properties as indexed cost of improvement. 2. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Officer Ward 12(2), Pune wrongly charged the interest of Rs.2,74,752/- u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act consequent to above said wrong additions. 3. The appellant may please

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

2) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the honorable CIT(A) has erred and is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.39,32,662/- as Long Term Capital Gain on sale of land without appreciating the fact that • the land under consideration is agriculture land which is not a Capital Asset

BHANDARI ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

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

2. Furnish purchase deed and agreement made with builders for the building for which you have claimed depreciation for Rs.1,76,06,470/- Purchase invoice for Sokar Power Generation system - Rs.9,63,909/-, Computer copier - Rs.32,473/- & Rs.23,400/-, Mobile-Rs.57,946/- and Furniture- Rs.3,03,726/-. 3. Furnish EB receipt and Property tax receipt. 4. RBL Bank Account

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

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

50C or any other relevant section) 7 TP03.01 International transactions in respect of lending or borrowing of money(TP Risk parameter) 8 BE02.01 Depreciation claimed at significantly higher rates/Large additional depreciation claimed. 3.1 Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2)/143(1) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee, followed by a show cause notice, in response to which

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

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 the provisions of section 151 and accordingly, the reasst. order passed u/s 147 is bad in law and the same may be declared null and void. 3] The assessee submits that the reopening

NAVNATH MAHADEV KUNJIR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

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

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

2 above, on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the assessee could not submit the details as called by the Assessing Officer as he was not served with various show cause notices issued. No physical notice was ever issued to the assessee. The assessee submits that non-issuance of physical notice