ALLAN EMANUEL FERNANDES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2493/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowed assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54F of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 19.12.2012, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) rejected assessee’s contentions and confirmed the findings of Assessing Officer. Against the order of First Appellate Authority, now the assessee is in second

VARUN SUNOY SARASWAT,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2148/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Varun Sunoy Saraswat, A/901, Crest Avenue, Behind Mahendra Showroom, Mumba Highway, Baner, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411045 …. Pan: Bqkps1546L Vs.

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On facts and in law, 2 Varun Sunoy Saraswat 1.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of exemption u/s 54F

JOHN THOMAS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

disallowance of appellant’s claim u/s 54F of Rs. 1,16,75,175/- made by the A.O. Appellant prays to allow the said claim for deduction u/s 54F in computing the capital gain. 2. CIT(A) has erred in not granting just and equitable relief to the appellant. 3. CIT(A) has erred in not cancelling interest charged u/s 234B

PRANAY LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F of the Act and hence, the exemption claimed is not justified. Accordingly, the claim of exemption has been denied by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance

KRUTI LALITKUMAR JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F of the Act and hence, the exemption claimed is not justified. Accordingly, the claim of exemption has been denied by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance

LALITKUMAR KESARIMAL JAIN,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1345/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F of the Act and hence, the exemption claimed is not justified. Accordingly, the claim of exemption has been denied by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance

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.

disallowances to the extent of 50% of wage expenses claimed by appellant in profit and loss account and 50% of sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet of the assessee. The Hon’ble Court took a view that the power of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be restricted on the ground of new source of income, as Section 251 clearly envisages the power

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.

disallowances to the extent of 50% of wage expenses claimed by appellant in profit and loss account and 50% of sundry creditors appearing in balance sheet of the assessee. The Hon’ble Court took a view that the power of Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be restricted on the ground of new source of income, as Section 251 clearly envisages the power

HANUMANT CHANGDEO NAKHATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashaliassessment Year 2015-16 The Dcit, Circle-8, Shri Hanumant Changdeo Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Nakhat, Bapu Niwas, Ram Vs Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagar, Rahatani, Nr. Akurdi Rly Station, Pune – 411 017. Pradhikaran, Pune Pan Acypn6082D Pin 411 044. Appellant Respondent

section 54F deduction claim amounting to 2 ITA.No.373/PUN/2019 Shri Hanumant Changdeo Nakhat, Pune. Rs.62,12,500/- during the course of assessment proceedings dated 08.12.2017 as upheld in the CIT(A)'s order as follows : 3 ITA.No.373/PUN/2019 Shri Hanumant Changdeo Nakhat, Pune. 4. Learned DR vehemently argued that both the lower authorities have rightly disallowed

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

disallowed the claim of deduction from the sale consideration of Rs.48 lakhs and restricted the claim of deduction u/s 54F of the Act to the extent of Rs.5,44,184/- on account of re-invested in his residential house. In fact, the reinvestment claimed in the names of both the sons, wife are not in accordance with the law. Another

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

disallowed the claim made u/s 54F as because the assessee was found ineligible for the deduction, the fact being that the assessee was already the owner of two residential houses. The appellant on the other hand argued as under : " Without Prejudice to the above submissions, it is submitted that even if capital is to be charged in the year under

SANJAY SHIVAJIRAO DODKE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1831/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Sanjay Shivajiraododke, The Income Tax Officer, S.No.136, Opp.Vitthal Mandir, Vs Ward-2(2), Pune. Warjemalwadi, Near Post Office,Pune – 411 058. Pan: Ahtpd 0390 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rahul Gaikwad For Shri Prateek Jha – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 12/05/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/05/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assesseeis Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2,Pune, Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2012-13.The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Claim Of Deduction Made Under Section 54F Of The I T Act To The Extent Of Rs.64,69,033/- Without Appreciating The Facts Of The Case Properly. 2(I). The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Enhancing The Total Income Determined By The Ld Ao. 2(Ii). The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Holding That Completion Of Construction Of House Is Necessary For Allowance Of Deduction Under Section 54F.

disallowance of claim of deduction made under section 54F of the I T Act to the extent of Rs.64,69,033/- without

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

section 54F deduction disallowance of Rs.3.25 crores made by the Assessing Officer in his section 143(3) r.w.s. 254 order

RAJESH G. GARGATTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.262/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 ………. अपीलाथ" / Shri Rajesh G. Gargatte, Row House No.5, Appellant Orchids, S.No.24/14, D.P. Road, Behind Medipoint Hospital, Aundh, Pune – 411 007. Pan : Aaxpg9886H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(2), Pune. Respondent

disallowance of exemption u/s 54F of Act. 2. On facts and circumstances of case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in concluding that phrase constructed "a residential house" used in section

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

disallowed on the fact that the land is not in the name of the Appellant neither is the co-owner. 5. The Appellant submits the Gram panchayat certificate which mentions the fact that the construction of house property was completed.” 3. Mr. Walimbe invited our attention to the CIT(A) detail discussion affirming the Section 54F

AMEETSINGH AJITSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 479, Eden Villa, Rasta Peth, Kasba Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aaqpr3148E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Riya Oswal Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 92,85,214/-Solely On The Ground That The Reinvestment Was Not Made In A Residential House.

disallowance of deduction claimed under section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 92,85,214/-solely

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the investment in the property purchased from spouse. That, accordingly, there could not be any reason to deny the Appellant's claim for exemption u/s 54F. In view of the aforesaid logic, the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made pertaining to disallowance

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD),CIRCLE -7,, PUNE vs. SANTOSH SURESH GUPTA,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.06/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Jcit (Osd), Vs. Santosh Suresh Gupta Circle – 7, Pune Flat No.B-4, 105, Agrasen Society, Koregaon Park, Pune – 411001 Pan: Acnpg6836H Appellant Respondent

disallowing the exemption u/s 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 2 Santosh Suresh Gupta 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been engaged as a Builder. She developed a project, namely, ‘Solitaire’, situated at Sr. No.17, Dhanori, Pune. The land for the same was purchased