TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....opment. Search action u/s 132 on 10-04-2013 was also carried out at the residential premises of the Assessee. Consequently, on the basis of search, the notice dated 26.10.2013 was issued to the Assessee, whereby he was requested to prepare a true and correct return of income for the assessment year under consideration. The Assessee in response filed its return of income on 15.12.2013 by declaring total income of Rs. 37,81,904/- as against the income of Rs. 37,81,900/- as declared previously by filing his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 31.03.2010, which was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act and thereafter resulted into passing the assessment order dated 14.12.2010 u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing the total income of the Assessee at Rs. 37,81,900/-. The AO in the assessment order dated 31.03.2016 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act has also made two additions of Rs. 6,81,11,103/- on account of brokerage income and Rs. 10,42,97,083/- on account of short-term capital gain. The Assessee, being aggrieved, before the Ld. Commissioner also challenged these additions along with other addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- which is not in controversy before us. 2.1 The Ld. C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e quashed" 5. The Revenue Department has raised the following grounds/objections in CO: "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in computing the sale consideration received from sale of lands under the head 'capital gains, without appreciating the fact that assessee is not the owner of the said lands. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the profit from impugned sale of lands of Rs. 10,42,97,083/- should be computed under the head 'income from other sources." 6. As in the present litigations, the controversy involved relates to making of two additions of Rs. 6,81,11,103/- and Rs. 10,42,97,083/- respectively on account of alleged brokerage income and Short-Term Capital Gain (STCG) earned from the sale of lands by the Assessee as made by the AO and affirmation of the addition of Rs. 6,81,11,103/- in full and of Rs. 10,42,97,083/- in part to the extent of Rs. 9,61,76,321/- (Rs. 4,44,48,125/- + Rs. 5,17,28,196/- respectively as short-term capital gain and long- term capital gain), hence for the sake of brevity, we are inclined to decide the present litigatio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to cross-examination has made the said addition. The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner also filed additional evidence in the form of confirmation letter from VPPL wherein a confirmation of payment of Rs. 8,84,87,859/- given to the Assessee and ledger confirmations in the books of VPPL of the amount of the Assessee from F.Y. 2007-08 to 2014-15 were also filed and it was also stated in the letter that the land deal was not concluded and the same is yet to be recovered from Mr. Rajesh Dake and that the payments were given as advance for purchase of agricultural land". 8.1 The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner also filed certain documents as additional evidence and therefore the Ld. Commissioner vide letter dated 30.04.2019, forwarded the same to the AO for his comments. 8.2 The AO though conducted the enquiry in the remand proceedings, however by submitting remand report dated 06.06.2019, formally objected to the admissibility of the additional evidence filed by the Assessee in the appeal proceedings, by submitting as under: "4.1 In the present case, the case of the assessee does not fall with the any of the exceptions in rule-46A. The assessee is not entitled to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as is shown in the ledger account on 15.04.2008. The sum of Rs. 6,81,11,103/- is only a Journal entry through VIPL expense payable account, except for the document which is being produced now, there is no independent verification is possible regarding veracity of the payment entry. However, the fact is that even in the confirmation filed from VPPL, it is stated that the same is yet to be received from Mr. Rajesh Dake as reportedly the deal was not concluded. No facts regarding the proposed deal were brought on record either during the assessment proceedings or during the appellate proceedings". 8.4 The Ld. Commissioner therefore on the aforesaid reasons agreed with the preliminary objection raised in Remand Report by the AO that sufficient opportunities were given in the assessment proceedings to provide documentary evidence in support of his claim in the books of account that the amount was shown as advance received from VPPL. Even during the appellate proceedings, no sufficient cause within the meaning of Rule 46A(4) of the Income Tax Rules 1962 (in short 'Rules') has been brought on record, to indicate that the Assessee was prevented from producing evidence, which he ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o the root of the case and admittedly the same is legal in nature and based on the facts and documents available on record already and therefore in view of the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment i.e. NTPC, we are inclined to allow the Assessee to raise the aforesaid additional ground of appeal and hence the same is allowed to be raised. 11.1 As the additional ground raised by the Assessee, is legal in nature and goes to the root of the case, hence for the sake of brevity, we deem it appropriate to decide the legal ground first, in the context of the additions made. 12. Coming to the addition of Rs. 6,81,11,103/-, we observe that in the instant case, the search action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out in the Valuable group of cases and its associated concerns on 10.04.2013 as well as at the premises of the Assessee and therefore the case of the Assessee was re-opened by issuing a notice u/s 153A of the Act on 26.10.2013, in response to which the Assessee e-filed his return of income on 05.12.2013 declaring total income of Rs. 37,81,907/- which was processed by the AO, who by considering the relevant details filed by the Assessee as called....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of completed/unabated assessments, no addition can be made by the AO in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961", has submitted that as the assessment proceedings of the Assessee are unabated and the addition in hand is not based on any incriminating material found during the course of search and therefore on the basis of aforesaid judgement, the addition in hand is not sustainable. 12.2 The Ld. DR. on the contrary by filing its reply to the legal ground raised by the Assessee qua aforesaid addition, has claimed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment has also laid down "that in case any incriminating material is found/unearthed even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns" and in the instant case the addition is based on the incriminating material such as the information qua selling of lands by the Assessee, found during ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l found during the course of search under Section 132 or requisition under Section 132A of the Act, 1961. However, the completed/unabated assessments can be re-opened by the AO in exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act, subject to fulfilment of the conditions as envisaged/ mentioned under sections 147/148 of the Act and those powers are saved. The question involved in the present set of appeals and review petition is answered accordingly in terms of the above and the appeals and review petition preferred by the Revenue are hereby dismissed. No costs." (Highlighted and segregated by us for better understanding) 13.1 The Hon'ble Apex Court in para no 14(iii) of the judgment has laid down the dictum that in case of any incriminating material is found/unearthed, even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns. 13.2 Further in para no. 14(iv) of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court also laid down the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee has not shown any sale of land to VPPL or VIPL. The Assessee has also not returned the alleged advance to VPPL or VIPL. The AO also alternatively treated the aforesaid amount as income u/s 41(1) of the Act and ultimately by holding that the Assessee has received the brokerage income of Rs. 6,81,11,103/-, added the same in the income of the Assessee. 14.1 The Assessee before the Ld. Commissioner in appeal claimed that the Assessee is into the business of land/property dealing and has/is received/receiving advances from various parties and on finalizing the land deals, adjusted/adjusting the advances received. It is admitted fact that the advance received from VIPL towards land deal has been shown as advance in the balance sheet of the Assessee and VPPL during the remand proceedings confirmed the advance given for purchase of agricultural land along with ledger account statement for the period 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2015. VIPL further confirmed the advance given to the Assessee by submitting a letter dated 24.05.2019 during the assessment proceedings, in response to the notice u/s 133(6) of the Act. 14.2 The Ld. Commissioner though considered the said claim/ contentions of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion u/s 41(1) of the Act, whereas the amount has been received during the assessment year under consideration and shown as advance in the balance sheet and the same has been confirmed as receivable by VPPL in the confirmation letter and thus there has not been any remission or cessation of liability within the meaning of provision u/s 41(1) of the Act during the relevant year under consideration. Therefore, the provision of section 41(1) of the Act, is at all not applicable in the absence of any remission or cessation of liability. The Assessee in this regard also relied on various judgments including CIT vs. Sugauli Sugar Works (P) Ltd. (1999) 236 ITR 518 (SC). 14.5 On the contrary the Ld. D.R. refuted the claim of the Assessee. The Ld. D.R. vehemently submitted that the Assessee not only failed to bring on record the relevant documents qua advance received under consideration, however, also failed to justify receiving the advance, as has not placed on record any relevant material qua the property transacted and/or agreed upon and/or not materialized and therefore the addition under consideration is liable to be sustained. As the Assessee also failed to produce the relevant do....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee and also confirmed the liability of the Assessee. It also clearly appears from the Assessment order and books of accounts of the Assessee, that the amount under consideration has been shown as advance received from VIPL and from the confirmation letter received from VPPL along with ledger account in the name of the Assessee for the period from 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2013 indicating outstanding advance of Rs. 8,84,87,859/- as on 22.05.2009 and on the basis of a Journal entry and voucher No.1436, the amount of Rs. 6,81,11,103/- has been shown as an amount paid to the Assessee by the VIPL on 15.04.2008, which also strengthens the genuineness of the claim of the Assessee. 15.3 No doubt, the Assessee has failed to demonstrate the land deal in respect of this particular amount and upto the date of passing of the impugned order on 29.09.2019, the Assessee has not returned the aforesaid amount, however, it is a fact that the Assessee is in the business of land deal and has received various amounts from various prospective buyers of the land, as it clearly appears from ledger accounts of the Assessee and it is also a fact that the Assessee has also sold various lands to VPPL as it ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssee and has not given any remission/cessation of liability within the meaning of provisions of section 41(1) of the Act, therefore the alternative treatment of the said amount by the AO is also not sustainable. 15.6 We further observe that in this case, the AO treated the amount of Rs. 6,81,11,103/- as brokerage income, whereas the Ld. Commissioner affirmed the same as un-explained income, which goes to show that considering the addition/income under consideration, there was no clarity between the authorities below, which also strengthens the case of Assessee qua its genuinity. 15.7 The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivraj Gupta vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi 425 ITR 420 (SC)/(2020) 117 Taxmann.com 871 (SC) has considered the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Wallchand & Co. (1967) 3 SCR 214 and SA Builders Ltd. Vs. CIT (2007) 158 taxman 74/288 ITR 1 (SC) and reiterated the dictum that the Income Tax Authorities must put themselves in the shoes of the Assessee and to see how a prudent businessman would act. The Authorities must not look at the matter from their own point of view but that of a prudent businessman. Thus, on t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....saction does not attract capital gain tax. As the land owners have not paid the capital gain tax but claimed the land as agricultural land and therefore to decide the issue "whether the land acquired by VPPL is agricultural land" and "whether the transactions involved these sale of land attract capital gain tax or not", the Revenue Department requested the Director of Survey of India, Maharashtra and Goa Geospatial Data Centre, Pune to verify "whether the lands purchased falls within the jurisdiction of 8 kms from the municipal limits of Panvel Municipal Council". The Survey of India vide report dated 12.06.2013 submitted that "villages as listed in the report falls within 8 kms from the outer limits of Panvel Municipal Council". M/s. Lotus Environments, Bangalore-Pune who were in a profession of land surveys and appointed by various Government Authorities for land surveys, distance, measurements and satellite based aerial map of land areas, was also asked to prepare and submit a report qua "aerial map of proposed site acquired by VPPL from the outer margins of Panvel Municipal Council". M/s. Lotus Environments Pune also submitted a report that on perusal of "aerial map" it is n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e sale consideration on sale of land is treated as short term capital gain .. 9.3. In view of the facts of the case and the above discussion Rs. 10,42,97,083/ is hereby added to the total income of the assessee under the head "Short Term Capital Gains". As the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and concealed income, penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately. (Addition - Rs. 10,42,97,083/-)" (Copy of Report as produced by the parties before us and reproduced by the AO in the Assessment order is not clearly legible and therefore the same is reproduced herein as it is) 18.1 From the opening stanza for initiating and making the addition under consideration in the assessment order, it clearly appears that the AO "on perusal of details of fixed assets' schedule, observed that the Assessee had sold lands for Rs. 10,22,17,123/- at Vardoli and Bherle, during the year under consideration. The AO further observed that from the post search findings with respect to land at village Vardoli and Bherle, the Survey of India in its report has submitted that the land at village Vardoli and Bherle is situated within 8 kms from the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appraisal report, it can be easily construed that in the post search proceedings, income tax records of the land owners were perused on AST data, wherefrom it was noticed that none of the land owners have paid any capital gain tax and on examination of 2 to 3 land owners, they submitted that since the land in question is agricultural land hence the transaction does not attract capital gain tax. And therefore, in order to verify the claims of the land owners including the Assessee, the subsequent proceedings vis-à-vis inquiry from Survey of India and M/s. Lotus Environments Pune, were carried out. 18.5 From the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is clear that addition in hand has been made only on the basis of "fixed assets' schedule" which was available prior to search proceedings and Survey of India Report which is admittedly based on enquiry conducted post search but not before to that. 18.6 It is also admitted fact that the assessment order has been passed u/s 153A of the Act but not u/s 153C of the Act, hence even otherwise any incriminating document found during the search of VPPL and VIPL (3rd person) but not the Assessee, has no relevance, until and unles....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing material is found/unearthed even in case of unabated/completed assessment, the AO would assume jurisdiction to assess or reassess the total income, taking into consideration the incriminating material unearthed during the search and other material available with the AO including the income declared in the returns" and as in the instant case the addition is based on the incriminating material such as the information qua selling of lands by the Assessee, found from the valuable group of cases, during the course of search and therefore the aforesaid ratio decidendi as laid down in para 14(iii), is squarely applicable to the Assessee's case. As we have analyzed above the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and held "that both the additions are not based on any incriminating material/documents found during the course of search and seizure operation and therefore are liable to be deleted" and therefore the aforesaid contention of the Ld. DR that ratio decidendi as laid down in para 14(iii) of the judgment in Abhisar case is applicable, is devoid of merits and untenable. 20. Now coming to the merits of the addition, we observe that various land owners including the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
............................................ (ii) .............................................................................. (iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate- (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a populations of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year; or (b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette;] 22.1 Definition of Capital Asset u/s 2(14)(iii) post amendment vide Finance Act 2013, reads as under: "capital asset" means property of any kind held by an assessee, whe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lation to A.Y. 2014-15 and subsequent assessment years. For the period prior to A.Y.2014-15 the distance between the municipal limit and the agricultural land is to be measured having regard to the shortest road distance. The Hon'ble High Court also noted that it is settled law that in such matters when there is any doubt or confusion, the view in favour the Assessee needs to be adopted. 22.4 It is also a fact that vide circular No.17/2015 dated 06.10.2015, the CBDT has taken the cognizance of the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and accepted the same and therefore directed the Revenue Authorities not to file any appeal, henceforth on this ground and if appeals filed already then, the same may be withdrawn/not pressed upon, as the issue is being a settled issue. 22.5 From the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and the CBDT circular No. 17/2015, it is clear that for the period prior to A.Y.2014-15, the distance between the municipal limit and the agricultural land, is to be measured physically having regard to the shortest road distance. 22.6 Coming to the Report of Survey of India, we observe that from the report it i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ipal Corporation and Bherle village to Panvel Municipal Corporation is more than 8 Kms. Even the Revenue Department neither doubted nor refuted the Google maps and the shortest route as depicted in the Google maps produced by the Assessee, by producing any evidence, which strengthens the case of the Assessee. Further the Revenue Department also failed to bring any other substantive evidence to prove the shortest road distance was measured physically. Whereas the Assessee by producing Google maps established that the villages whereas lands were situated did not fall within 8 Kms. of the outer limits of Panvel Municipal Council. Even otherwise in spite of cropping up and emphasizing this issue qua not falling the lands in question within the radius of 8 kms from the outer limits of Panvel Municipal Council, by the Assessee during post search proceedings i.e. assessment and appellate proceedings respectively before the AO and Ld. Commissioner, the authorities below failed to verify the exact facts/distance of the subjected lands from outer limits of Panvel Municipal Council. Thus considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances in totality, we are of the considered view that the Reve....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee in the form of agricultural income, which is immensely dis-proportionate to the amount of investment made and did not bear any rational proportion to the investment made in acquiring the land. 23.1 The Ld. D.R. therefore on the aforesaid observations of the Ld. Commissioner supported the decision of the Ld. Commissioner in treating the land sold by the Assessee as non-agricultural land. 23.2 On the contrary the Ld. A.R. before us demonstrated the extracts of 7/12 and tried to justify the cultivation. Further the Ld. AR drew our attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ashok Chaganlal Thakkar vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre writ petition No.3099 of 2022 decided on 13.02.2024 and claimed that as per judgment, the actual carrying on of agricultural operation is not a necessary condition for deciding that the parcels of land were agricultural lands. 24. We have heard the parties on this issue and given thoughtful considerations to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. It is not in controversy here that in the documents such as sale deeds etc., the lands sold in favor of Assessee have been shown as agricultu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis that petitioner did not show any evidence of carrying on of agricultural operation in the land. This is despite recording in the impugned order, what the ITAT had held that the CIT(A) has accepted petitioner's contention that actual carrying on of agricultural operation is not a necessary condition for deciding that a particular parcel of land was agricultural land. Therefore, the AO should have, instead of passing the impugned order, restricted his scope to ascertain whether the documents submitted by petitioner would indicate that the land was an agricultural land. The AO should have restricted his scope of work only to determine whether the land was situated in an area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of municipality or cantonment board and whether it has a population in excess of ten thousand. If the additional evidence submitted by petitioner mentioning that the land sold as agricultural land did not inspire confidence or require further verification, the AO should have conducted proper enquiry to ascertain the authenticity of certificates issued by Talati and Gram Sevak. Without disproving the correctness of the confirmation / certificates issued by the Tal....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....be deemed to be the income of the previous year in which the transfer took place. ********************************* Capital asset is defined under Section 2(14) of the Act, and reads as under: (14) "capital asset" means -- (a) property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession; ********************************* but does not include - ********************************* (iii) agricultural land in India, not being land situate -- (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand ; or (b) in any area within the distance, measured aerially, -- (I) not being more than two kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a) and which has a population of more than ten thousand but not exceeding one lakh; or (II) not being more than six kilometres, from the local limits of any ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e provisions of sub-section (2), where the capital gain arises from the transfer of a capital asset being land which, in the two years immediately preceding the date on which the transfer took place, was being used by the assessee being an individual or his parent, or a Hindu undivided family for agricultural purposes (hereinafter referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period of two years after that date, purchased any other land for being used for agricultural purposes, then, instead of the capital gain being charged to income-tax as income of the previous year in which the transfer took place, it shall be dealt with in accordance with the following provisions of this section, that is to say, -- (i) if the amount of the capital gain is greater than the cost of the land so purchased (hereinafter referred to as the new asset), the difference between the amount of the capital gain and the cost of the new asset shall be charged under section 45 as the income of the previous year; and for the purpose of computing in respect of the new asset any capital gain arising from its transfer within a period of three years of its purchase, the cost shall be n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e AO has to reject the evidence filed by petitioner, he shall bring contrary material on record. For that, the AO has to conduct an enquiry to ascertain the authenticity of the certificates filed by petitioner. The AO may take such steps as required by conducting necessary enquiry with the concerned Government authorities. The contention of petitioner cannot be rejected purely on presumption that the lands sold were not an agricultural land because petitioner sold the parcels of lands within two years of purchase. If the AO is satisfied that the parcels of land actually are not situated in an area which will fall under Section 2(14)(iii), the AO shall proceed on the basis that in the facts and circumstances of the case, actual carrying on of agricultural operation is not a necessary condition for deciding that the parcels of lands were agricultural lands." {highlighted by us for clarity and better understanding } 24.2 From the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, it is clear that for considering the claim of the Assessee u/s 2(14)(iii) of the Act, actual carrying on of the agricultural activity is not a necessary condition for deciding that nature of land....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....CO appears to be bonafide, inadvertent and with no malafide intention. Even otherwise in our considered view, as the appeal of the Assessee also pertains to the impugned order which has partly being challenged by the Revenue Department and the appeal of the Assessee is to be decided by us and therefore no prejudice shall be caused to the Assessee, in case the CO is also adjudicated along with the appeal of the Assessee, hence for the just decision of the case and substantial justice and fair play, the delay of 592 days in filing the instant CO by the Revenue Department is condoned, as an exceptional case under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 26.3 Coming to the merits of CO, we observe that the Revenue Department has raised following grounds of CO. "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in computing the sale consideration received from sale of lands under the head 'capital gains, without appreciating the fact that assessee is not the owner of the said lands. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the profit from impugned sale of lands of Rs. 10,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....न रोगा मà¥à¤ƒà¤¸à¥à¤ªà¤¾à¤¤à¤¿à¤• मांशà¥à¤¯à¤¾ बंद à¤à¤µà¤‚ नगर, à¤à¤¾à¤²à¤‚बी पेर. पà¥à¤°à¥à¤¨ - 412 006 Phulc Hager, Alendf Ress, Pure - 411 056. दिनांक/Date:) 2206/2013. सेवा में: उप-निदेशक, आयकर (hrwH-I · मेंजोल अशार आय टी पारà¥à¤•, रोड में. 16à¤à¥‡à¤¡, आरà¥à¤¨à¤¿à¤•à¤¾ नगर पागलें इंडà¥à¤° टीमन इसà¥à¤Ÿà¥‡à¤Ÿ, ठाणे (पंबिस) में विधये दूरी समà¥à¤¬à¤§à¤¿à¤¤ जानकार....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....¥€à¤Ÿà¤° नी रिजà¥à¤¯à¤¾ आमरोक संदरà¥à¤à¤¿à¤¤ पतà¥à¤° के अंदर में पà¥à¤°à¤¤à¤¿à¤¨à¤¿à¤§à¤¿ दà¥à¤µà¤¾à¤°à¤¾,पतयेत संपनिसिपल सीमा गà¥à¤°à¤¾à¤® à¤à¤¾à¤°à¤¤à¤¨à¥‡ तम बाड़ी हमारे मनपरिषॠसे पà¥à¤°à¤¦à¤°à¥à¤¶à¤¿à¤¤ नहीं है। (गीदà¥à¤¯à¤¾ बà¥à¤œà¥‡à¤°à¥€ इम-अधीकà¥à¤·à¤• सरà¥à¤µà¥‡à¤•à¥à¤·à¤• कà¥à¤¤à¥‡ निदेशक, महारा à¤à¤µà¤‚ गोदा à¤à¥‚-सà¥à¤¥à¤¾à¤¨à¤¿à¤• आंकड़à¤....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....artment to Vardol, Maharashtra - Google Maps Google Maps Panvel Municipal Corporation, Local Body Tax Department, X4P6+QR7, Uran Rd, Old Panvel, Panvel, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410206 to Vardoli, Maharashtra Drive 13.0 km, 34 min 0 C NO Google via NH 48 33 min Fastest route 13.8 km via NH 48 and Shedung Vardoli 34 min Rd 11.8 km Lighter traffic than usual A via Mahatma Gandhi Rd and NH 34 min 48 13.0 km Explore Vardoli P - Restaurants Hotels Gas stations Parking Lots More https://www.q ogle.com/mapa/di on,+Local+Body+Tax+Depertment,+X4P8%3BORT,+Uran+Rld,+Old+Panvel,+Panv ... . 1/1 Document 5 10/7/24, 4:58 PM Punvel Municipal Corporation, Local Body Tax Department to Vardoli, Maharashtra - Google Maps Google Maps Panvel Municipal Corporation, Local Body Tax Department, X4P6+QR7, Uran Rd, Old Panvel, Panvel, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra 410206 to Vardoli, Maharashtra Drive 13.0 km, 34 min Google 0 Map dufa 02004 2kmg. A via NH 48 33 min Fastest route 13.8 km via NH 48 and Shedung Vardoli 34 min Rd 11.8 km Lighter traffic than usual El via Mahatma Gandhi Rd and NH 3....