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.

50C. Second Instance , the Assessee offered income of Rs,4,77,20,760/- as Rent received from Matrix as Income from House Property and AO also treated it as Income from House Property, but the Ld.CIT(A) held it as Business Income. 10.3 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has assessed income

SHASHIKANT BIRMAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2959/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Shashikant Birmal, ‘Suryoday’, Shri Navvinayak, Sahakari Sanshta, Kothrud, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aavpb4855F Vs.

section 50C at Rs.72,72,000/- to determine capital gain arising from sale in place of Rs.55 lacs as per sale deed dated 21.04.2005. Without prejudice 2 Shri Shashikant Birmal the AO erred in bifurcating consideration u/s 50C Rs.72,72,000/- at Rs.44,88,979/- for residential portion and Rs.27,83,021/- for non-residential portion of the subject property

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

house property. (a) The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed the interest paid for acquisition of above said properties/flats and claimed as indexed cost of improvement and therefore the said disallowances made by Assessing Officer is not justified and same may please be allowed as indexed cost of improvement and grant the deduction. (b) The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly

PANDURANG KASHINATH BHILARE,PUNE vs. ITO, (IT) WARD 1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

house from M/s.K.N.Associates vide Agreement dated 31.03.2017. We have perused the said Agreement to Sale and noted ITA No.198/PUN/2025 [A] that it was executed on 31.03.2017. The first page of the said agreement is scanned and reproduced here as under : 4.1 Thus, it can be observed that the impugned agreement for purchase of immovable property was executed on 31.03.2017, which

DILIP SHANTILAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

House No.6, Kohinoor Estates, Mula Road, Khadki, Pune – 411003 PAN : ABOPJ0510F .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue by : Shri Satish C. Grover सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 09-01-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 14-01-2020 आदेश / ORDER

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

property (building) was given on rent to various schools from 01.06.2008. The assessee has shown income from business in return of income. The AO sought to invoked provisions of section 50 & 50C. The AO observed that the school building was constructed keeping in view needs of school and intention of building was on commercial basis. The AO also observed that

VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

House Property, Income from S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 Partnership firms, Capital Gains and Income from Other sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.78,24,250/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer (AO) vide order dated 03.02.2021 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.143

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

house property and hence, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the facts of each of the persons, balance capital was claimed at Nil. The details of the same are reproduced by the Assessing Officer under para 6 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had received land on family

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

house property and hence, the claim of deduction under section 54F of the Act. In the facts of each of the persons, balance capital was claimed at Nil. The details of the same are reproduced by the Assessing Officer under para 6 of assessment order. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had received land on family

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.

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

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

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

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the provisions of 8 section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. He submitted that since in the instant case the assessee had made the initial booking in the year

SAI BHARGAVNATH INFRA,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House Sinhagad Road, Hingne Khurd, PUNE – 411 051 PAN: ACBFS 9830 K :Appellant Vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income-tax Circle 6, Pune. : Respondent Appellant by : Shri Suhas Bora Respondent by : Shri Arvind Desai Date of Hearing : 11-08-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 17-08-2022 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from

KALU NAMDEO NANDGUDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

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

section 50C and brought to tax capital gain on sale of land in current assessment year on the basis of execution of Registered Sale Deed. The short contention of the assessee is that for determining Long Term Capital Gain the sale price of land should be considered as per sale agreement executed in 1989 and not the fair market value

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

50C reads as follows "Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where (a) The assesses claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, (b) the value so adopted or assessed

SAI BHARGAVNATH INFRA ,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

House, S. No. 16, Hingne Khurd, Pune – 411051 PAN : ACBFS9830R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 6, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri Asif A. Karmali सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 31-08-2020 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08-09-2020 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

BHUJPAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(5), PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.21/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Bhujbal Brothers Construction The Income Tax Officer, Company, Vs Ward-3(5), Pune. Bhujbal House, S.No.28 , Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. Pan: Aagfb 7974 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 04.11.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3Ito Wd. 3(5)/388/2018-19 In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

House, S.No.28 , Karve Nagar, Pune – 411052. PAN: AAGFB 7974 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Shri S P Walimbe – DR Date of hearing 24/06/2022 Date of pronouncement 07/07/2022 आदेश/ ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM: This Assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2015-16 is directed against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’s order

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)

50C where the Income Tax Act allows 10% of the difference between stamp duty value and the sales consideration in case of Immovable property. This rate of variation is increased from 5% to 10% in the Finance Act 2020 keeping in mind the practical difficulties and uncertainties while calculating the fair value. 5.2.7 Similarly as regards to the valuation