HEENA IRFAN BEPARI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

173 taxmann.com 582 (para-10.2) xii. Order of ITAT Pune in DCIT VS Kolte Patil [ITA Nos. 2011 & 2023/Pune/2024; Asst. yrs. 2014-15 & 2016-17], reported in (2025) 235 TTJ (Pune) 113 : (2025) 39 NYPTTJ 552 (Pune) (Para-45) 14. The above judicial precedents have categorically upheld the above proposition and has held the notice to be time barred

HEENA IRFAN BEPATI,SANGLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1183 & 1184 /Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Heena Irfan Bepari, V The Income Tax Officer, 661, Raviwar Peth, S Ward-5, Sangli. Madhavnagar, Sangli – 416416. Maharashtra. Pan: Bnepb9635A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte– Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe –Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 16/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 29/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2013-14 & 2014-15 Both Dated 24.03.2025 Respectively.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita

173 taxmann.com 582 (para-10.2) xii. Order of ITAT Pune in DCIT VS Kolte Patil [ITA Nos. 2011 & 2023/Pune/2024; Asst. yrs. 2014-15 & 2016-17], reported in (2025) 235 TTJ (Pune) 113 : (2025) 39 NYPTTJ 552 (Pune) (Para-45) 14. The above judicial precedents have categorically upheld the above proposition and has held the notice to be time barred

R B DIAMOND HOUSE,JALGAON vs. PNE-C-1, RANGE -25, CIRCLE -1, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

173/- u/s 139(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”).\nBased on the information received from the Investigation Wing that M/s\nRaisoni Bagrecha Diamonds P. Ltd. has claimed assessee to be a Trade\nPayable of Rs.94,94,285/- whereas the assessee has declared Sundry\nDebtors of Rs.3,39,679/- only, the reassessment proceedings u/s 147 were\ninitiated

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune.)\n13.\nSo far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year has made an\naddition of Rs.26,90,56,640/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances\nreceived from the customers which were shown as liabilities

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune.) 13. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year has made an addition of Rs.26,90,56,640/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances received from the customers which were shown as liabilities

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune.) 13. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment year has made an addition of Rs.26,90,56,640/- u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of advances received from the customers which were shown as liabilities

ATHARV VIJAY YEWALE SOCIAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. ITO EXEMPTION WARD 1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: MS.ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

173 as taxable income without allowing any deduction for expenses incurred by the trust in fulfilling its objectives. • The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance of expenses and taxed the entire receipts, disregarding the principles of accounting and the intent of the Finance Act, 2022. Principle of Net Income: Taxing gross receipts is contrary to the commercial principles of taxation

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune)]\n13. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of\nRs.3,58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune)]\n13.\nSo far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of\nRs.3,58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune)]\n13.\nSo far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of\nRs.3,58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

173 taxmann.com 616 (Pune)]\n13.\nSo far as the merit of the case is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\nsubmitted that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 35(2AB) of\nRs.3,58,47,391/- which was denied by the Assessing Officer on the ground that\nthe relevant R & D unit was not approved by DSIR

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.

173 of PB No. 2] If the Appellant was engaged in construction of the building and selling the same, they would not have taken the task of applying for operating and maintaining the I-T Park and getting the requisite approvals. As a Trader, the Appellant would have only intended to construct and sell the property with the intention

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.

173 of PB No. 2] If the Appellant was engaged in construction of the building and selling the same, they would not have taken the task of applying for operating and maintaining the I-T Park and getting the requisite approvals. As a Trader, the Appellant would have only intended to construct and sell the property with the intention

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

reassessment proceedings the assessee has claimed that he is eligible for deduction u/s 54B of the Act as he has utilized 50% share of the sale consideration from sale of urban agricultural land for purchase of another agricultural land within a period of two years from the date of sale of land. The assessee claim of having invested