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.

capital gains and treating the same as 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

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

capital gain or short Term Capital Loss in their books of accounts. The assessee Shri Ashish Omprakash Mantri is one such beneficiary and the amount involved in his case is Rs.1,60,30,716.35/-. As per information received, the share price of /s. Nivya Infrastructure & Telecom Services Ltd rose from Rs.39/- on 21/07/2009 to Rs.2,050/-on 05/01/2011 and dipped

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

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGAON vs. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA, JALGAON

In the result, all the above 6 appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed and

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

capital gains as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. The tribunal while dismissing the appeals filed by the Revenue also observed on facts that these shares were purchased by respondent on the floor of Stock Exchange and not from the said broker, deliveries were taken, contract notes were issued and shares were also sold on the floor

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

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

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

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

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

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

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

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

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

reassessment. In response, the assessee requested to treat the returns filed originally for the respective assessment years as returns filed in response to the notices u/s 148 of the Act. The AO observed that the assessee had disclosed long term capital gain

JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

capital gain of Rs. 85,38,145/- as exempted from sale of shares of YICL. 5.3.1 It is further seen from the Investigation report that in this scheme, the shares of the penny stock companies are acquired by the beneficiaries of LTCG at very low prices through the route of preferential allotment and off market transactions, then granting the bonus

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”].

reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.]” 5.5 If the provisions of law contained under section 14A and diction of section 14A is perused

ITO WARD 9(4),, PUNE vs. SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain at Rs. 48,23,210/- which was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer found that during the assessment proceedings of the other co-owner /partner Shri. Mahendra Vitkar for A.Y. 2006-07, Shri Vitkar in his reply submitted on 29-12-2008 had stated that he had not made any investment in the property i.e. the two lands

SH. MAHENDRA R. VITKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 10(2),, PUNE

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain at Rs. 48,23,210/- which was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer found that during the assessment proceedings of the other co-owner /partner Shri. Mahendra Vitkar for A.Y. 2006-07, Shri Vitkar in his reply submitted on 29-12-2008 had stated that he had not made any investment in the property i.e. the two lands

GANPAT MUKUNDRAO MURKUTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

capital gain at Rs. 48,23,210/- which was offered to tax. The Assessing Officer found that during the assessment proceedings of the other co-owner /partner Shri. Mahendra Vitkar for A.Y. 2006-07, Shri Vitkar in his reply submitted on 29-12-2008 had stated that he had not made any investment in the property i.e. the two lands

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ATUL OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

capital gain as claimed by the assessee on the premise shares. 7. We find nothing to indicate failure to disclose any material fact. Upon examining the order u/s 143(3) we find that the AO has considered these very transactions and added 1,07,18,922 to the total income on which the Petitioner has already paid