RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

27 DTR (Jd) 139 affirmed, CIT vs. Smt. Shaila Agarwal (2012) 246 CTR (All) 266 : (2012) 65 DTR (All) 41: (2012) 346 ITR 130 (All) relied on; KP Varghese vs. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) 131 1TR 597 (SC) applied”. (Paras 25, 29 & 30) 12. In a decision in the case of M/s D J Malpani

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.

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

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.

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

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

SMT. SHAKUNTALA R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

J&K). Another reliance placed upon by the learned Departmental Representative for the Revenue was on the ratio laid down by the Chandigarh Bench of Tribunal in Dewan Engg. Work Vs. DCIT in ITA No.963/Chd/2011, relating to assessment year 1991-92, order dated 26.02.2014. He then pointed out that the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee would

MERCEDES - BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं./ Ita No. 1865/Pun/2013 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 1999-2000 Mercedes Benz India Private Limited. ( Formerly Known As Daimler Chrysler India Private Limited) E-3, Midc Chakan, Phase-Iii, Chakan Industrial Area, Kuruli & Nighoje, Tal : Khed, Pune-410 501. Pan : Aabcm 1789L .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

reassessment proceedings were not held to be valid. The contention of the Revenue therefore, is that adjudication on admissibility on deduction u/s.35AB could not be examined on merits and, therefore, deduction u/s. 35AB cannot be said to have been allowed in the AY 1995-96 i.e. the first year on merit. During the course of the hearing before

RAJENDRAKUMAR SHRISHRIMAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.3282/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Rajendrakumar Shrishrimal, V The Income Tax Officer, 685/3, Anant Vashat, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Bibwewadi, Pune – 411037. Pan: Bjsps9226G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Abhilash Hiran Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147 Read With Section 144B Of The I.T.Act, 1961 Dated 03.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

27 July 2022 instead of obtaining approval from the learned Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax under section 151 (ii) of the Act, hence the reassessment notice issued and consequential order passed may be quashed and set aside. 3. Ground No 3: Copy of sanction obtained under section 151(i) of the Act and relied upon material not provided during

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

J Crystal, Tilak Road, Pune, various\nincriminating documents were found and seized.\nShri Manoj Chhajed is found to be maintaining bank account with Axis\nBank bearing account no. 350010100056665. On examination of said bank\naccount, it is noticed that there are many credit entries from Kolkata based\nshell companies. The details of such credits pertaining to FY 2010-11\nrelevant