VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Housing Development Company v. JCIT [165 ITD 76 [Bang.)] wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal had approved the reliance on the AS- 4and observed that in the case of joint development agreement, the profitability depends on the progress of the construction activity. The Hon’ble Tribunal therefore observed that the profitability of the company can be very well judged in advance

SMT BEENA SHAMMI CHAUDHARI,PUNE vs. ITO., WARD 6(4), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Beena Shammi Chaudhari Vs. Ito, Ward B/3-302, Silver Oak, Florien Estates, 6(4), Pune Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan : Adypc5109R Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri V.L. Jain Revenue By Shri M.G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 16-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17-02-2022

house property for a sum of Rs.26 lakhs by means of a sale deed registered during the year. No capital gain was offered for taxation. Proceedings were initiated by means of a notice u/s 148 of the Act. During the course of the reassessment

LALCHAND MEHRUMAL JAGWANI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mr. Lalchand Mehrumal Jagwani Vs. Ito, Ward 7(3), B-37, Marigold Premises, Behind Pune Gold Adlab Big Cinema, Wadgaonsheri, Pune – 411014 Pan : Adspj8025F Appellant Respondent

Property and Rs.11,60,530/- and Rs.11,60,530/- as business income and claimed Rs.1,25,000/- as deduction under CH.VIA of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. Since the bank account of Shri Lalchand M. Jagwani has received credits by way of cash / cheques, the above transactions have to be verified. For this purpose, it is necessary to reopen

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

Housing Society Ltd. in Tax Appeals No. 1496 to 1498 of 2005 dated 12-07-2006, wherein it is held as under:- “The short controversy involved in these appeals whether the Assessing Officer can refer any matter for valuation of the property of an assessee though assessment and/or reassessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

Housing Society Ltd. in Tax Appeals No. 1496 to 1498 of 2005 dated 12-07-2006, wherein it is held as under:- “The short controversy involved in these appeals whether the Assessing Officer can refer any matter for valuation of the property of an assessee though assessment and/or reassessment

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

reassessment proceedings by computing the income from sale of immovable property at 3 Rajendra Rasiklal Shah Rs.15,13,95,000/- by reducing the cost of acquisition of Rs.16,05,000/- incurred in the year 1992-93 from the sale transaction of Rs.15.30 crore. Income assessed at Rs.15,32,59,330/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make your submissions along with documentary evidences in support of your contention." 5. Assessee duly responded to the show cause notices and furnished the information about the purchase of residential properties

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

reassessment proceedings. Mr. Ajit Satam confessed that he had earned income of Rs 26.55 crores earned from the assessee with respect to the Tilaknagar project. A copy of said letter dated 28.03.2016 is enclosed at Pg 96-100 of the Paper Book. The said disclosure was made on 29th March 2016. He has voluntarily offered the above sum of Rs.26.55

PRITESH RATANSHI VED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), JALGAON

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

house property, income from short-term and long-term capital gains and also income from other sources and has not filed his return of income. As per information available on AIMS module of ITBA, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee has sold immovable property of Rs.1,59,63,000/- and also purchased immovable property of Rs.90 lakh

SHAMKANT KESHAV KOTKAR (PROP. NANDAN BUILDERS),PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House Property o Loss from Business o Capital Gain o Income from other source 7. A search action u/s.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted at the residence of Assessee-Shamkant Keshav Kotkar along with other Nandan Group Cases on 03.02.2021. Therefore, Assessee’s case was centralized with DCIT, Central Circle-2(4), Pune by the Competent Authority

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. ABHAYRAJ FATTEHRAJ CHORDIYA, C/O LAXMI OIL MIL

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the CO filed by the assessee is allowed

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

house property, income from business and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,01,810. A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was conducted in the case of M/s. C & M Farming Ltd. (C&M Group cases

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

house property, profit from the firm as also capital gain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen for which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was supplied the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuing such notice with reasons read

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

house property, profit from the firm as also capital\ngain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen\nfor which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end\nof relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was\nsupplied the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuing\nsuch notice with reasons read

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

house property, profit from the firm as also capital gain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen for which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was supplied the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuing such notice with reasons read

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

house property, profit from the firm as also capital gain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen for which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end of relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was supplied the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuing such notice with reasons read

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

house property, profit from the firm as also capital\ngain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen\nfor which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end\nof relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was\nsupplied the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuing\nsuch notice with reasons read

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

house property, profit from the firm as also capital\ngain. It is this scrutiny assessment the respondent desired to reopen\nfor which impugned notice within the period of 4 years from the end\nof relevant assessment year came to be issued. The petitioner was\nsupplied the reasons recorded by the assessing officer for issuing\nsuch notice with reasons read

MR. MANOJ N. PERE,AURANGABAD vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2676/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Mr. Manoj Nandikishor Ito, Ward-1(1), Pere, Aurangabad A3, 01St Floor, Manohar Vs. Vastu, Opp. Hi Tech Computers, Tilak Nagar, Aurangabad-431005 Maharashtra Pan-Amupp7701M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent Assessee By: Cas Ravindra S. Darekar & Prasad S. Bhandari (Through Virtual) Department By: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing: 07-08-2025 Date Of 13-08-2025 Pronouncement:

house property. 4) On the facts and in law the A.O. has erred in reopening the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 on the basis of factually incorrect reason that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 1,50,00,000/- in saving bank account 5) The appellant craves leave to add alter delete above or any other ground/s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

reassessment were totally incorrect. 4. Prayer Assessee submits that appeals preferred by I-T department are incorrect and as such deserve to be dismissed.” 28. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) being in accordance with law should be upheld and the grounds raised by the Revenue be dismissed. 29. We have heard the rival arguments