DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

house property‖, ―Capital gains‖ and ―Income from other sources‖], or a company or granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

house property‖, ―Capital gains‖ and ―Income from other sources‖], or a company or granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

house property‖, ―Capital gains‖ and ―Income from other sources‖], or a company or granting of loans and advances) consists in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies such company shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to be carrying on a speculation business to the extent to which the business consists of the purchase and sale

SULOCHANA LAXMIKANT BHALE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1594/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

house property on 27.02.2012 by furnishing the sale deed. The balance amount of Rs.6,80,000/- was stated to have been deposited out of her own savings. Thereafter, a notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the appellant on 07.11.2019 calling upon to explain the various claims made by her. Notices u/s.143(2)/show cause notice were issued to the appellant

SUVARNA KIRAN CHAVAN,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1, NASHIK

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1785/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18

house property, income from business or profession etc. The assessee filed the return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 05.11.2017 declaring income of Rs.43,40,100/- which was revised on same date declaring total income of Rs.31,75,740/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was 3 Suvarna Kiran

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

property and construction of residential and commercial buildings. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.119,8,31,267/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,02,32,288/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

property and construction of residential and commercial buildings. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.119,8,31,267/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,02,32,288/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

property to the DVO arises regular prices, therefore there was no occasion for Ld. CIT(A), to refer the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the matter of valuation of some of the flats/ shops should be referred to the DVO. Accordingly

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA

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

property to the DVO arises regular prices, therefore there was no occasion for Ld. CIT(A), to refer the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the matter of valuation of some of the flats/ shops should be referred to the DVO. Accordingly

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

Housing v. CIT[2013] 38 taxmann.com 203 (Mad) (iv) Pr.CIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC) (v) Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 335 (Del) (vi) Pr.CIT v. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 122 (Del) (vii) Trident Estate (P) Ltd. v. ITO[2021] 127 taxmann.com 360 (Mum. – Trib.) (viii) Krish Infrastructure

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 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] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

House Building Society Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 39 (Punjab & Haryana)- legal Paper book pg no. 87- 90 5.15. Your Honour's, since, sec. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145 (1) (erstwhile 145A(b) of the Act does not determine the year of taxability where litigation is pending; and even though above judgements pertain to Assessment Years prior to Amendment

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHANKUDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with

SHRI GULAB MARUTI DHAKUNDE ,PUNE vs. DCIT/ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamore

127(1) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gulab Maruti Dhankude Vs DCIT/JCIT(OSD) ITA No.960 to 963 & 965 to 968/PUN/2024 4. ITA No 960/PUN/2024; 4.1 While recording aforestated statement, in answer to Question No 16, the assessee admitted that; he was in receipt of ₹25Lakhs out of development agreement dt. 03/05/2010 entered into by him with