DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

transferred on an earlier date of entering into agreement to sell with reference to the prevailing market price on that date. 10. However, to avoid misuse of this beneficial provision, second proviso to section 50C

DEEPARAJE J. SHIROLE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Jayashree J Shirole, Jayvilla, 86/6B, Damle Path, Erandwane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411004 …. Pan: Acmps4316B Vs.

price was less than fair market value, hence section 50C of the Act was applicable. The assessee had sold the said property for ₹ 36 lakhs, whereas the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities was ₹ 2 crores. The assessee was show caused and asked as to why full value of consideration should not be adopted. The assessee pointed out that

JAYASHREE J. SHIROLE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Jayashree J Shirole, Jayvilla, 86/6B, Damle Path, Erandwane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411004 …. Pan: Acmps4316B Vs.

price was less than fair market value, hence section 50C of the Act was applicable. The assessee had sold the said property for ₹ 36 lakhs, whereas the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities was ₹ 2 crores. The assessee was show caused and asked as to why full value of consideration should not be adopted. The assessee pointed out that

JAYRAJ J SHIROLE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Jayashree J Shirole, Jayvilla, 86/6B, Damle Path, Erandwane, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411004 …. Pan: Acmps4316B Vs.

price was less than fair market value, hence section 50C of the Act was applicable. The assessee had sold the said property for ₹ 36 lakhs, whereas the value adopted by the stamp duty authorities was ₹ 2 crores. The assessee was show caused and asked as to why full value of consideration should not be adopted. The assessee pointed out that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIR 1(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. CITY CORPORATION LTD.,(EARLIER KNOWN AS M/S AMANORA FUTURE TOWERS P LTD), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vs. M/S. City Corporation Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Earlier Known As M/S. Amanora Pune Future Towers Pvt. Ltd.,), 917/9A, City Chambers, F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411004 Pan : Aakca3074H Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

pricing adjustment of Rs.10,51,97.830/-. The ld. CIT(A) directed to include Marg Limited in the list of comparables, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that there is no dispute on any other issue

AMANORA FUTURE PVT. LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.619/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Vs. M/S. City Corporation Limited, Dcit, Circle-1(1), (Earlier Known As M/S. Amanora Pune Future Towers Pvt. Ltd.,), 917/9A, City Chambers, F.C. Road, Shivajinagar, Pune-411004 Pan : Aakca3074H Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.45/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

pricing adjustment of Rs.10,51,97.830/-. The ld. CIT(A) directed to include Marg Limited in the list of comparables, against which the Revenue has come up in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. Having heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record, we find that there is no dispute on any other issue

M/S GOYAL DEVELOPRS,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.210/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S.Goyal Developers, The Acit, 1, Business Embassy, V Circle-2, Pune. 1205/3/3, J.M.Road, S Shivajinagar, Pune – 411005. Pan: Aajfg5666P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde - Dr Date Of Hearing 29/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 08.12.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Not Appreciating That There Was Marginal Difference Between The Sales Consideration Shown By The Appellant & The Value Adopted For Payment Of Stamp Duty & M/S.Goyal Developers [A]

50C. ………………… (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where— (a) the assessee 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 or assessable

MADHAV BHARGAV CHITALE,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, RATNAGIRI

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

transferred in the instant case. Consequential reduction in the interest amounts and penalties (if any) sought to be recovered. 2. A reference to the Valuation Officer vide provisions of sub section 2 of section 50C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may kindly be allowed for the reason that the value adopted by the ITO during the assessment vide provisions

VENKETESH ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.203/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Venketesh Associates, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. S. No.50 2 Office No.1, Platinum Classic Building, Pune Nagar Road, Chanddan Nagar, Pune- 410014. Pan : Aajfv9490J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Lower Authorities Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.37,53,597/- By Invoking Provision Of Section 43Ca, On Account Of Difference

50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed [or assessable] by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2111/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16

transfer pricing provisions and has also been judicially approved as well. However, the question is that which of the international transactions can be aggregated for a combined ALP determination approach? The answer to this question has been given generally in Knorr-Bremse (supra) by laying down the principles of aggregation and specifically in Magneti Marelli (supra) disapproving the aggregation

VIJAY ARVIND RAYKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2),, PUNE

In the result, the Ground No

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.3010/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vijay Arvind Raykar, The Income Tax Officer, Ward- S.No.33, Wadgaon(Bk), Vs 6(2), Pune. Singhagad Road, Haveli, Pune – 411041. Pan: Adqpr 1950 F Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Abhay A.Avchat– Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 19/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/04/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune Dated 29.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Has Erred In Disallowing An Amount To The Extent Of Rs. 94,526/- Under The Provisions Of Section 14A Of The Act Read With Rule 8D & The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 2. There Is Error In Making Aggregate Addition Of Rs.27,30,900/- Under Section 43Ca Of The Act & Appropriate Relief Should Be Granted To The Assessee In Respect Thereof. 3. The Assessee Requests For Grant Of Appropriate Relief From Additions Made Under Section 14A & 43Ca Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The Order Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(2), Pune, Under Section 143(3) Dated September 29, 2017 Is Bad In Law & Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Officer (Appeals)-V, Pune Has Erred In Confirming The Same. 5. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Of The Grounds Of Appeal.”

price more than the stamp duty valuation. Therefore, after discussing, the AO made an addition of Rs.27,30,900/- under section 43CA of the Act. 4.2 Aggrieved by the addition, the appellant filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) accepted the assessee’s plea that the AO should have referred the properties for valuation to the departmental

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

price at Rs.47,97,557/- has made substantial payment of Rs.34,56,438/- before 31.03.2013 and merely the registration was not done, therefore, the provisions of section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. 9 12. I find some force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee. The contents of the allotment letter dated

JAIN IRRIGATION SYSTEMS LTD,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, JALGAON

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.227/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jain Irrigation Systems Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Jain Plastic Park, N.H No.6, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2, Jalgaon – 425001. . Jalgaon. Pan: Aaacj 7163 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Percy Pardiwala; Shri Prashant Maheshwari & Ms.Monicamulchandani – Ar’S Revenue By Shri B Koteswara Rao – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/12/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’Sappeal For Assessment Year 2013-14Is Directed Against Thedeputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Cricle-2, Jalgaon’S Assessment Order Dated 29.10.2017, Framed In Furtherance To The Dispute Resolution Panel-3, Mumbai (Drp)’S Direction Dated 25.09.2017 Passed In Objection No.78, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) R,.W.S 144C(5) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

50C, section 50D which pre-suppose even accrued or arisen or “assessable” consideration or section 115O etc envisaging “any addition” to already declared income, this anti avoidance Chapter would not apply in the given facts since the assessee had not charged any price at all for these corporate guarantees. And that such a course of action would amount to improvement

M/S NISARG DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.57/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/S. Nisarg Developers, Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. S.No.84/3B, Gund Vasti, Pune Solapur Road, Manjari, Pune- 412307. Pan : Aagfn9362G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 7, Pune’S Order Dated 08.11.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-7/10338/2017-18 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. We Note At The Outset That The Cit(A)’S Lower Appellate Order Affirming The Assessing Officer’S Action Making Section 43Ca Addition Of Rs.19,10,334/- In Assessment Order Dated 14.11.2017;

transferred. The legislature appears to have introduced the foregoing twin tolerance margins of “5%” and “10%” vide Finance Act, 2018 w.e.f. 1.4.2019 as substituted in the Finance Act, 2020 w.e.f. 1.4.2021; respectively in section 50C of the Act. This tribunal’s co- ordinate bench(es) in Sri Himmatbhai Dharamshibhai Sonani vs. ACIT (2016) 75 taxmann.com 141 (Ahd) and Maria Fernandes

MAKRAND N.AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1) of the Act categorically provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration of the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others authority on the date of the original agreement

JAYANT N.AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1) of the Act categorically provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration of the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others authority on the date of the original agreement

CHANDRASHEKHAR N. AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1) of the Act categorically provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration of the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others authority on the date of the original agreement

YASHWANT N.AKOLKAR (HUF),,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2),, PUNE

In the result, all the four appeals are allowed for

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal

section 50C(1) of the Act categorically provides that where the date of agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date of registration of the transfer of capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Jayant N. Akolkar (HUF) and 3 others authority on the date of the original agreement

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

price of immovable property) considering the various aspects such as future earnings, value of assets and capacity of the plant etc. The purpose of transfer of shares is distribution of shares among the promoters/members only. As per the provisions of Companies Act 2013 related to transfer of share in case of Private Company, restrict the Private Company to transfer