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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 50C and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act have been inserted in the legislature.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from placing reliance on the finding of ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decisions of this Tribunal on identical issue in the case of other co-purchasers where except the fact that

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

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

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 2015-16. 2

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

property was on a higher side and hence, the above addition made u/s 50C without referring the matter to the DVO was not sustainable in law. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the disallowance of Rs.42,38,018 claimed u/s 54F in respect of long term capital gain on the ground that the appellant had made investment

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

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

AKASH ,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), WARD-1, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

House No.1140, Sector-29, Officer(IT), Noida – 201303. Ward-1, Pune. Uttar Pradesh. PAN: AFIPA4977M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Ms. Neha Thakur – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28/08/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: Brief facts of the case : As per the assessment order, in this case, the assessee

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

VIJAYMALA VILAS KALOKHE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD-10(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1666/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Vijaymala Vilas Kalokhe, Ito, Ward-10(1), Pune Aditya Row House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2A, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 Pan : Asepk8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.06.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed His Return Of Income For Ay 2013-14 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,21,050/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) After Following The Mandate Procedure As Laid Down Under The Relevant Provisions Of The Act. Accordingly, Statutory Notice U/S 142(1) Of The Act & Show Cause Letter(S) Were Issued To The Assessee From Time To Time. However, The Assessee Failed To File Any Response To The Said Notice(S) Which Constrained The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) To Pass An Ex-Parte Order U/S 144 Of The Act Based On The Material Available On Record. The Ld. Ao Proceeded To Complete The Assessment On Total Income Of Rs.2,66,70,989/-U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act Thereby Making An Addition Of Rs.2,63,83,209/- On Account Of Undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg) By Observing As Under : “5.1. On-Going Through The Information Available On Record & In View Of The Order Passed U/S 148A(D) Of The Act Dated 21.07.2022, It Is Noticed That 2

House, Lane No. 2, Opp. Patel Garden, Sr. No. 8/2a, Vs. Juni Sangavi, Maharashtra-411027 PAN : ASEPK8161G अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Amit Bobde Date of hearing : 28-01-2026 Date of 30-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against

ARCHANA PRASHANT DATE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms.Astha Chandra

2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382). 3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that ld.CIT(A) on one hand has accepted the assessee’s contention about the indexed cost of purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.41,44,720/- but then failed

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

ROUNAK FARMS PVT. LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL) CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

House, Tarabai Park, Dist.-Kolhapur-416003 PAN : AAECR8415R ......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, (Central) Circle, Kolhapur ……प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Kesari सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16-08-2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 08-09-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI

PANDHARINATH MAHADEO OVHAL,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX WARD-14(3) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.419/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Pandharinath Mahadeo Ovhal, The Income Tax Officer, C23, S No.46 1+2+3+8+9, V Ward-14(3), Pune. Satya Vihar Bldg, Wanawqadi, S Pune – 411040. Pan: Aahpo 0334 L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2012-13 Dated 23.03.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.11.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Learned Assessing Off Erred In Passing Ex-Parte Order & Also Erred In Not Adjudicating The Issue On Merit, This Action Is Being Violative Of Pandharinath Mahadeo Ovhal[A]

50C without referring the matter to the DVO this being in violation of provisions of section 50C2 such adoption of value is not permitted 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. The Learned Assessing officer erred in treating Gross Receipts as income of appellant under the head Capital Gain without realizing the fact

AMRUTA VIVEK PADALIKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

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

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

Housing Soc Vs. Ltd., Dhayari Narhe Road, Dhayari, Pune City-411041 PAN : BKDPP1095C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Digambar Surwase Department by : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date of hearing : 18-12-2025 Date of 21-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders

AMRUTA VIVEK PADALIKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHPAUR

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

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

Housing Soc Vs. Ltd., Dhayari Narhe Road, Dhayari, Pune City-411041 PAN : BKDPP1095C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Digambar Surwase Department by : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date of hearing : 18-12-2025 Date of 21-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The above two appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders

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

House, Shastrinagar, Vs. Khopoli, Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad – 410203 PAN: AAACJ7356D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 19-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against