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.

Business Income and changing income from house property to business income, is enhancement in the facts and circumstances of this

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

Business income earned by the assessee consisted mainly from Renting of parking spaces, Table spaces and Games collection etc. The assessee was show caused as to why such income should not be treated as ‘Income from 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

Business income earned by the assessee consisted mainly from Renting of parking spaces, Table spaces and Games collection etc. The assessee was show caused as to why such income should not be treated as ‘Income from 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

Business income earned by the assessee consisted mainly from Renting of parking spaces, Table spaces and Games collection etc. The assessee was show caused as to why such income should not be treated as ‘Income from house property

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

Business income earned by the assessee consisted mainly from Renting of parking spaces, Table spaces and Games collection etc. The assessee was show caused as to why such income should not be treated as ‘Income from 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

Business income earned by the assessee consisted mainly from Renting of parking spaces, Table spaces and Games collection etc. The assessee was show caused as to why such income should not be treated as ‘Income from house property

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

House property. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Neha Builders (P) Ltd. (supra) has held that where the property is held as stock in trade any income derived from stock would be income from business

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared business income'. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head income, from house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared business income'. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head income, from house

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

properties and the rental income as received therefrom was declared business income'. The AO held such income to be chargeable to tax under the head income, from house

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)

Income from house property. 7 - The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

income from salary, house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor 8 ITA.No.625/PUN./2024

KHINVASARA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Khinvasara Chavan Acit, Circle – 5, Pune Shop No.1 & 2, Vijay Apartments, Vs. 22, Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aacfk3473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan R Potdar Department By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

business' and not 'income from property’. 8. Respectfully following the decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal cited (supra), we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made by him on account of notional income from the house

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. SHRI. ULHAS MALLIKARJUN PATIL,, SOLAPUR

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purpose in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1751/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, Shri Ulhas Mallikarjun Patil, Ward-2(3), Solapur, Vs Block No.3, Sunandan . Complex, Near Dayanand College, Ravivar Peth, Solapur – 413004. Pan: Akepp 1943 P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Krishna V Gujarathi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 05/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-7/Wd- 2(3)/10434/2016-147, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

business instead of income from house property. The appellant submitted that income from house property should have been computed at Rs. 4,87,892/- and relied

PRANJAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -4, , PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

house property'. At the same time, we find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd . [2007] 164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business

SOLUTIONEYES CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -6(5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

house property'. At the same time, we find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd . [2007] 164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business

PRANJAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

house property'. At the same time, we find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd . [2007] 164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Income from House Property’. Assessee furnished the details called for by ld. Assessing Officer (AO) in the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act. Valid statutory notice also issued u/s.143(2) of the Act. Ld. AO observed that there are certain immovable properties which the assessee is claiming to have been used for the business

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

business; 3.2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the additions made by the AO u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act deserves to be deleted. 4.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in taxing the income from Renting of property under the head "Income From