ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claim of interest expenditure of Rs.2 lakh on account of borrowed capital for self occupied house property and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

deem it proper to restore the issue to\nthe file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to grant one final opportunity to\nthe assessee to substantiate his claim of interest expenditure of Rs.2 lakh on\naccount of borrowed capital for self occupied house property and decide the issue\nas per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly

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.

deemed dividend are not at all attracted in the present case since section 2(22)(e) envisages loans / advances by the Company to its shareholders and not the other way round; (ii) In the present transactions the Shareholders of the Assessee company had given loans / advances to it and therefore there was no question of applicability of section

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 PAN: AAICA8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

dividend income on the shares or interest income on the deposits. Even otherwise, this question was not raised before the subordinate Tribunals and, all of sudden, the Tribunal started applying the analogy. 9. From the statement of the assessee, it would clearly appear that it was treating the property as 'stock-in- trade'. Not only this, it will also

DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI , PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

ARIHANT PATNI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 ,PUNE, PUNE vs. AMITKUMAR GAJENDRAKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7, PUNE, PUNE vs. ASHOKKUMAR SOBHAGMAL, PATNI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. VASUNDHARA APPORVA PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

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

house property’. This 6 finding of the ld. CIT(A) is inconsonance with the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chelmsford Club vs. CIT, 243 ITR 89 (SC) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that :- “A conjoint reading of sections 2(24), 14, 22 and 23 also makes it abundantly clear that what

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”].

dividend. Apparently, there are no other receipts which would depicts complex nature of letting out to treat rental receipt as business receipt ITA No.1751/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 (A) Shri Ulhas M. Patil 5.6 The main issue is invocation of provisions of section 50 in respect of school building sold. Admittedly, no depreciation has been claim by the appellant

KARMAVEER BHAUSAHEB HIRAY NASHIK JILHA KRISHI AUDYOGIKSAHAKARI SANGH LTD. KRISHI BHAVAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property) of Rs.35,97,139/-, interest income and dividend income (under the head income from other source) of Rs.1,50,41,447/-. However, as per return filed by assessee, the deduction u/s.80P is allowed to the extent of Rs.1,08,70,807/- after set off of business losses, therefore the disallowance on account of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80P

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14 (5),, PUNE

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

property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be less than the total disallowance required to have been made. By holding so held the AO has rightly invoked the methodology under Rule 8D and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO for the purpose of Section

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be less than the total disallowance required to have been made. By holding so held the AO has rightly invoked the methodology under Rule 8D and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO for the purpose of Section