ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue of interest on housing loan to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. For interest expenditure, the Tribunal allowed the claim. The issue of agricultural income and Chapter VI-A deductions were also restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed deductions for interest on housing loan and interest expenditure. The Assessing Officer disallowed these claims due to lack of evidence and improper utilization of borrowed funds. The CIT(A) upheld these disallowances.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee can claim deductions not made in the original return filed under Section 139, and whether interest expenditure is allowable when not fully utilized for earning income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 139,Section 153A,Section 24(b),Section 57(iii),Section 28(v)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- CIT v. Rajendra Prasad Moody386 citing115 ITR 519 · 1978 · SC
- PCIT v. JSW Steel Ltd.92 citing270 Taxmann 201 · 2020 · HC
- Veecumsees v. CIT33 citing220 ITR 185 · 1996 · SC
- CIT v. Rampur Timber & Turnery Co. Ltd.28 citing129 ITR 58 · 1981 · HC
- Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. DCIT3 citing20 ITR 14 · 2009 · SC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS ASTHA CHANDRA
PER R.K. PANDA, V.P:
The above 2 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 07.11.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment years 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and partner in various firms of Gagan group of cases. He filed his original return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.Nil (for assessment year 2019-20 at Rs.57,29,190/-). The assessee filed a revised return o
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 139
- Shree Bandharda Seva Sahkari Mandli Ltd… vs Income Tax Officer Ward -4, JunagadhITA 881/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Shamsunder Pritesh Malode, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-12(1), HyderabadITA 399/HYD/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Parthasaradhi Mutually Aided Co-Operative… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), HyderabadITA 2322/HYD/2026[AY 2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026
- Radhakishan Potharajula, Karim Nagar vs ITO (Int Taxn)-2, HyderabadITA 2340/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2016-17
- Shiva Shiksha Samiti, Deendayal Puram, Up… vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-Exemption, Agra…ITA 415/AGR/2026[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Sh Umang Uniyal vs. Commissioner Department Of Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 16 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Vk Construction vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - IiMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Sri Bhuvaneshwari And Co vs. The Deputy Commissioner (St)Madras · 15 Oct 2026