M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

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.

business income is beyond the powers conferred u/s. 251 of the Act. In this regard, the appellant has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Jaipur Tribunal in the case of Jagdish Narayan Sharma v. ITO [65 ITR (Trib.) 194]. However, as pointed out during the course of hearing, the facts of that case are entirely different. In that case

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. SAGAR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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 : 2017-18

reassess the income of the petitioner under Section 147 of the Act. 13. As clearly seen from the record, to which, we have made a reference in the aforesaid paragraphs, it appears to be quite clear that there was a search and seizure action on 4 October, 2018 on the business

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

business income. 5.1 OBSERVATION OF THE AO:- During the assessment proceedings the cases for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 were reopened by the AO as it was observed that the assessee had transacted in shares & mutual funds through PMS with an intention to maximize profit by resorting to frequent trading rather than holding shares for a long duration. Notices

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

business income. 5.1 OBSERVATION OF THE AO:- During the assessment proceedings the cases for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 were reopened by the AO as it was observed that the assessee had transacted in shares & mutual funds through PMS with an intention to maximize profit by resorting to frequent trading rather than holding shares for a long duration. Notices

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

business income. 5.1 OBSERVATION OF THE AO:- During the assessment proceedings the cases for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 were reopened by the AO as it was observed that the assessee had transacted in shares & mutual funds through PMS with an intention to maximize profit by resorting to frequent trading rather than holding shares for a long duration. Notices

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

business income. 5.1 OBSERVATION OF THE AO:- During the assessment proceedings the cases for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 were reopened by the AO as it was observed that the assessee had transacted in shares & mutual funds through PMS with an intention to maximize profit by resorting to frequent trading rather than holding shares for a long duration. Notices

INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. SMT. ROOPA JAYANT GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, all the 5 appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1296 To 1300/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Income Tax Officer, अपीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 3(2), Pune …. Vs. Smt. Roopa Jayant Gupta, C/O Mrs. Mrinalini Kirloskar, Lakaki Road, Model Colony, Pune – 411016 …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pan: Aehpb5246H

business income. 5.1 OBSERVATION OF THE AO:- During the assessment proceedings the cases for A.Ys. 2008-09 to 2011-12 were reopened by the AO as it was observed that the assessee had transacted in shares & mutual funds through PMS with an intention to maximize profit by resorting to frequent trading rather than holding shares for a long duration. Notices

SATISH VISHNU THOMBARE, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. VARSHA PRAFULLA ZENDE, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1656/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Satish Vishnu Thombare, Varsha Prafulla Zende, Income Tax Officer, Prop Of Bleach Chem Enterprises, Ward-1, Ahmednagar Vs. Industrial Estate, Shrirampur, Maharashtra-413709 Pan : Aabpz2541C अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Miss Shivani Shah (Virtual) Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 29-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

business of supply of chemicals. For AY 2010-11, the assessee had filed her original return of income on 17.09.2010 declaring total income at Rs.8,95,759/-. A search and seizure action u/s 132(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was conducted on 02.07.2013 in the case of one, Shri Anand Kumar Sharma. The Ld. Assessing Officer

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

business of agriculture. For A.Y. 2018- 19, the assessee did not file his return of income. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) by issue of notice u/s 148 on account of the sale of immovable property worth Rs. 80,00,000/- In response to the notice

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

reassessed has the effect of reducing the loss or converting such loss into income. 11. The assessees case would fall only in clause (g) of Section 270A(2) of the Act as the ultimate assessment had the effect of reducing the loss retuned by the assessee. It was further pointed out that under reporting of income has got certain exceptions

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

business income, was enacted and came into force by the Finance Act, 2022-23, the assessee withdrew its claim of deduction of health and education cess in the subject AY 2020-21 amounting to Rs.5,34,01,866/- (pages 187 and 235 of the paper book refers). 5.1 Referring to the amended provisions inserted with Finance

ASHOK DHANRAJ CHORDIA ,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-1, PUNE

reassess the income of the petitioner under Section 147 of the Act.\n13. As clearly seen from the record, to which, we have made a reference in the\naforesaid paragraphs, it appears to be quite clear that there was a search and\nseizure action on 4 October, 2018 on the business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

business of construction. It filed it’s return of income on 13.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.23,83,97,010/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1)(a) on 21.06.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,84,93,182/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues: (i) Default

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

business of construction. It filed it’s return of income on 13.02.2021 declaring total income of Rs.23,83,97,010/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1)(a) on 21.06.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.23,84,93,182/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS to examine the following issues: (i) Default

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

income or profits which can be said to have accrued,\narisen or received after the discontinuance of such business or dissolution\nof the firm.\n9. In the instant case, undisputedly the assessee firm was dissolved on\n31.08.2012 and there is nothing on record to show that any business\ntransaction has been carried out after its dissolution. The assessment order\nhas

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

business of land development at Nashik. Regular assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) stands completed on 16.12.2016 for the year under appeal accepting the returned income. The search on the Kokani Group of Nashik conducted u/s.132 of the Act on 08.09.2015 and various incriminating material were found and seized. The one referred by ld. AO for carrying out the reassessment

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

business premises of the assessee from 5th to 7th February, 2020 during which certain registers were impounded containing the undisclosed professional receipts according to which such undisclosed receipts for the year under consideration were Rs.49,64,120/-. When confronted the assessee admitted that the receipts contained in the said registers are not recorded in the books of account and kept

POONAWALLA SHARES & SECURITIES PVT.LTD,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH-TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.380/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Poonawalla Shares & Securities The Assistant Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income 16-B,/1, Sarosh Bhavan, Tax, Dr.Ambedkar Road, Circle-4, Pune. Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaacp 6087 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2016-17 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune’S Order Dated 11.12.2019 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-3/Cir 4/193/2018-19/428, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

business was divisible, the principle of apportionment of the expenditure was applicable and the expenditure apportioned to the 'exempt' income or income not eligible to tax, was not allowable as a deduction. Sectionl4A reads as under: “Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. 14A. [(1)] For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter

M/S MANILAL P. SAVLA & COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

income or profits which can be said to have accrued,\narisen or received after the discontinuance of such business or dissolution\nof the firm.\n9. In the instant case, undisputedly the assessee firm was dissolved on\n31.08.2012 and there is nothing on record to show that any business\ntransaction has been carried out after its dissolution. The assessment order\nhas