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.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

house and secondly, the new residential property was purchased before one year prior to the sale of original 5 asset. Admittedly, the sale consideration was paid prior to the one year before the sale of original asset. There is no bar under law to claim deduction simultaneously u/s,.54 and u/s.54F in respect of the same asset. The crucial fact

SHRI PRAFULLA DAYARAM PIPADA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Prafulla Dayaram Pipada, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dayaram Nagar, Manmad Road, Ahmednagar Sakuri Rahata, Ahmednagar – 423 107 Pan : Achpp8007F Appellant Respondent

397/-. Such negative income was adjusted against income from house property etc. The assessee could not place necessary documents before the AO, which led to the passing of the assessment order u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’), in which deduction of interest of Rs.20,94,755/- was denied. The matter was taken up before

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

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

397/- and the assessee has sold the said Flat for a 8 consideration of Rs 60,39,200/-. Therefore Your Honour would note that the assessee has sold the said Flat for a consideration which is higher than the value for the purpose of payment of Stamp Duty. As such the provisions of Section 43CA should not apply. If Your

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

397 ITR 416 (Delhi). (viii) Sri S.M. Kamal Pasha vs. DCIT, (8) TMI 966 (Karnataka). (ix) PCIT vs. Jay Infrastructure and Properties Pvt. Ltd., (10) TMI 1022 (Gujarat). (x) Smt. Jami Nirmala vs. PCIT, 437 ITR 573 (Orissa). (xi) Smt. Smrutisudha Nayak vs. Union of India, 439 ITR 193 (Orissa). (xii) CIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Limited, 388 ITR 574 (Calcutta

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

House No.B12, Income Tax (Central), Aayakar vs. Pune-Satara Road, Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Bibwewadi, PUNE. Park, PUNE – 411 037. PIN – 412 202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

397\nIn this case, the\npetitioner had filed the\nwrit petition under\nArticle 226 of\nconstitution of India\nright after receiving the\ndisposal of objection.\nHowever, this case\nrelated to Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court.\nWhen there are\nconflicting judgements\nof various High Courts,\nthe Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of\nVegetable Products 188\nITR

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

397\nIn this case, the\npetitioner had filed the\nwrit petition under\nArticle 226 of\nconstitution of India\nright after receiving the\ndisposal of objection.\nHowever, this case\nrelated to Hon'ble\nGujarat High Court.\nWhen there are\nconflicting judgements\nof various High Courts,\nthe Hon'ble Supreme\nCourt in the case of\nVegetable Products 188\nITR