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

MARUTI NIVRUTTI BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

transfer was assessed at Rs. 1,14,84,140/-by the stamp duty valuation authority. The appellant 5 Maruti Nivrutti Bhujbal objected to the value so assessed and therefore assessing officer referred the valuation to DVO as required as per sec. 50C(2) of the Act. The valuation report from DVO was however not received before the passing

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

1) The learned assessing officer erred in the facts and circumstances of the case, and as per the law, in reopening the case, by issuing notice on 20.03.2023 under section 148 in person by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer when the same is required to be issued in a faceless manner as per Notification No.18 dated 29.03.2022 and hence the assessment

SHRI GURUDEV CHANDRASHEKHAR KARANTH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT CIT(DRP-3), MUMBAI

In the result, Grounds Number 1 and 2 raised by the Assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.147/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Gurudev Chandrashekhar V Income Tax Department Karanth, S. Cit(Drp-3), Mumbai-1. 21 Cozy Retreat, Sindh Colony, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Cgnpk6203J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri B.C.Malakar – Advocate Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 04/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 02/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.12.2024 For The A.Y.2018-19, Emanating From The Order Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S.144C(5) Of The Act, Dated 20.12.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

price paid by the assessee as per the Registered Agreement. The difference of Rs.7,75,500/- is 4 % only of the Value Decided by DVO. 5. Section 56(2)(x) was amended by Finance Act, 2018, the amended section is reproduced here as under : “56(2)(x) where any person receives, in any previous year, from any person or persons

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

1), Mumbai, ITA. No. 3864/Mum/2016, vide order dated_05/12/2018. In this case, the Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT has decided the issue of payment made by purchaser of the property in addition to the price fixed as per earlier agreement to purchase. In this case, the purchaser THPCL had agreed to purchase the land from the appellant and other co-owners

M/S OM SHRINIWAS DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ITO WARED-6(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S.Om Shriniwas Developers, V The Income Tax Officer, Off No.2 & 3, Vastusadan S Ward-6(3), Pune. Bldg, 743, Guruwar Peth, Pune – 411042. Maharashtra. Pan: Aabfo7491G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Smt. N C Shilpa – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 01/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2025

Price 101 23,00,00 23,90,595/- 90,595/- 3.93% 202 27,10,100/- 28,38,000/- 1,27,900/- 4.72% TOTAL 2,18,495/- 13. Thus, it can be observed that the difference is less than 5%. ITAT Pune in the case of V.K.Developers Vs. ACIT in ITA No.923/PUN/2019 has held as under : “4. We find no merit

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

1,45,28,805/- (i.e. provision for gratuity divided by / Rs. 2,34,67,670/- paid up capital Rs. 10/- face value of equity shares). 5.2.4 The appellant has made the submission as to why there is no scope for estimating the value of equity shares under rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. The factors like concept of safe

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

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

1,45,28,805/- (i.e. provision for gratuity divided by / Rs. 2,34,67,670/- paid up capital * Rs. 10/- face value of equity shares). 5.2.4 The appellant has made the submission as to why there is no scope for estimating the value of equity shares under rule 11UA of the Income Tax Rules. The factors like concept of safe

ASHOK SOMNATH SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1) NASHIK, NASHIK MAHARASHTRA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2154/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Ashok Somnath Sonawane, Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik Tara Kutir Bunglow, Mahatma Nagar, Nashik-422005 Vs. Pan : Alops7734A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Vadulekar (Virtual) Department By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 23-07-2025 Date Of 30-09-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

section 50C is clearly inevitable and as per such provision of the Act the value of the sale consideration has to be accepted as per the valuation made of the property for stamp duty calculation. In this case since stamp duty was paid at a much higher rate and the registered documents itself has given the market price on which