DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

additional income from house property. The assessee has also offered additional income of Rs.3,15,000/- being income from House

MAHANAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahanagar Constructions, S.No.129, H.No.1/2, Hari Ganga, Near Rto Office, Yerwada, Pune-411006. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aajfm8909K बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-7(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vipin Gujrathi Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Pune Dated 12.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 11,59,200/- To The Income Of The Appellant Under The Head “Income From House Property” Being The Annual Letting Value Of The Unsold Units Lying As Stock In Trade Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & The Unsold Flats Are Held As Stock In Trade & Not As Investments. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted. 2) Without Prejudice To Ground Of Appeal No. 1, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune

addition has been made by determining notional annual rental value on unsold units. Whereas, in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sane & Doshi Enterprises (supra) the assessee had actually rented out the flats and had offered the rental income under the head „Income from House Property

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

Income from House Property. The addition made under the head Income from House property is unwarranted, unjustified, contrary to the provisions

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

Income from House Property. The addition made under the head Income from House property is unwarranted, unjustified, contrary to the provisions

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

additional income is not available for such set off. CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 69 to 69C of the Act and held that the “deemed income” was offered during survey action is not in the nature of income taxable under the head salary, house property

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

additional income is not available for such set off. CIT(A) invoked the provisions of section 69 to 69C of the Act and held that the “deemed income” was offered during survey action is not in the nature of income taxable under the head salary, house property

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(3),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Income from house property’ in addition to certain income voluntarily offered by the assessee as ‘Income from house property’. The ld. CIT(A) overturned

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(3),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Income from house property’ in addition to certain income voluntarily offered by the assessee as ‘Income from house property’. The ld. CIT(A) overturned

M/S. MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (HQ) -6(1),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Income from house property’ in addition to certain income voluntarily offered by the assessee as ‘Income from house property’. The ld. CIT(A) overturned

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(3),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Income from house property’ in addition to certain income voluntarily offered by the assessee as ‘Income from house property’. The ld. CIT(A) overturned

MARIGOLD PREMISES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER (WARD) -14(5),, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita. Nos.896, 917, 947, 948 & 949/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2017-18

Income from house property’ in addition to certain income voluntarily offered by the assessee as ‘Income from house property’. The ld. CIT(A) overturned

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.

addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized by the assessee from the Hotel Building. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the assessee by changing the head of income from ‘Income from House Property

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.

addition of Rs.3,89,26,200/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of difference in Revenue recognized by the assessee from the Hotel Building. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in enhancing the income of the assessee by changing the head of income from ‘Income from House Property

M/S. VARUN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

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

House Property u/s. 22, it is submitted that the unsold units were vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. Nil in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(c) and hence, the entire addition

M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

house property u/s 22, it is submitted that the unsold units were vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. NIL in view of the provisions of Section 23(1) (c) and hence, the entire addition

M/S. NIRMAN HOMES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

addition on account of deemed rent after considering standard deduction of 30% works out to Rs. 18,81,231/-. The same is therefore, added to the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration under the head “House property

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2977/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14 Kumar Properties & Real Estate Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Private Limited, Pune Ist Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 27.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28-04.2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-7, Pune On 01.09.2017 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,47,65,688/- Towards Deemed Rental Income On Stock-In-Trade Of Unsold Flats/Bungalows Held By The Assessee, As A First Major Issue. Succinctly, The Factual Panorama Of The Case Is That The Assessee Has Been Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties With The Projects `Kumar Infinia’ & `Kumar Picasso’

property’. Relying on judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leasing Company Ltd. (2013) 354 ITR 180 (Del), the AO computed the annual letting value of the unsold flats u/s.23 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’) at Rs.1,47,65,688/- and made addition

KOLTE PATIL I-VEN TOWNSHIPS PUNE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property u/s 22, it is submitted that the unsold units were vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. NIL in view of the provisions of section 23(1)( c) and hence, the entire addition

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer