TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

2) of the Act of adopting as arm’s length price, a price which varies by not more than 5 per cent from the arm’s length price. II. Grounds of objections in respect of disallowances/ additions other than transfer pricing adjustment 14. Disallowance of Incremental provision for warranty of Rs.10,198,196/- : Erred in disallowing the incremental provision

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

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

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

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

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

50C and 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act have been inserted in the legislature.\n6. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the assessee apart from placing reliance on the finding of ld.CIT(A) also referred to the decisions of this Tribunal on identical issue in the case of other co-purchasers where except the fact that the assessee

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

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

price on that date. 10. However, to avoid misuse of this beneficial provision, second proviso to section 50C(1) categorically provides that the first proviso shall apply only when the amount of consideration or part thereto was received through banking channel on or before the date 11 Dinar Umeshkumar More of agreement for transfer . In order to circumvent a situation

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

SAI BHARGAVNATH INFRA ,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

price of the property on account of location factors and possibilities of its use. The circle rates adopted for stamp duty purpose disregards all the above factors and stamp duty valuation is for specific purpose for levy of stamp duty and it cannot be formed the foundation to determine the fair market value of the property transferred

KALU NAMDEO NANDGUDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

transferred in the name of M/s. Bhoomi Enterprises vide registered Sale deed dated 08-03-2011. The Assessing Officer invoked the provisions of section 50C and determined the value of property at Rs.2,71,57,500/- based on Government valuation for stamp purposes. The Assessing Officer computed assessee‟s share at Rs.82,11.000/-. After allowing the benefit of indexed cost

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

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

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.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

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.

section 50C will not be applicable. The CIT(A) also gave direction in the order for AY 2010-11 to assess the balance consideration in AY 2011-12 as business income and not as capital gain as claimed by assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before this tribunal. 7. Submission

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

2. The Departmental appeal is time barred by 63 days. The ld. AR did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. The delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. A return was filed

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

2. The Departmental appeal is time barred by 63 days. The ld. AR did not raise any objection to the condonation of the delay. The delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of real estate development. A return was filed

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

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 harbor limit or tolerance band or discount for lack of marketability