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

house property in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to some arithmetical error, there was shortfall in disclosing that rental income but rental income from the above two properties was disclosed. We find some force

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

house property and not a plot. c) Further, the Appellant purchased a new residential property and not a plot of land and claimed deduction u/s 54 (not u/s 54F of Act). AO has wrongly observed that Appellant claimed deduction u/s 54F of Act and disallowed

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

disallowed as it was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4. However, the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence to prove the payment of interest on housing loan taken for the purpose of purchase of self occupied 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’

house property' after one/two years from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained on and from the A.Y. 2018-19. Instantly, we are concerned with the assessment year 2013-14. As such, the amendment cannot apply to the year under consideration. In the absence of the applicability

SHRIKANT VISHWANATH GOGATE,,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(K/Z) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

disallow exemption u/s 54EC of the ITA, 1961 amounting to Rs.17,00,000/- on the analogy that appellant has invested in NHAI Bonds after six (6) months from the date of transfer. The learned CIT (IT/TP), Pune ought to have appreciated that delay of 17 days in investment in NHAI Bonds was due to bonafide reasons and appellant in-fact

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

property’. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, he allocated such expenses in the ratio of House rent receipts to Business receipts at 51:49. As a result of that, 51% of such Maintenance expenses were disallowed

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

property’. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, he allocated such expenses in the ratio of House rent receipts to Business receipts at 51:49. As a result of that, 51% of such Maintenance expenses were disallowed

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

property’. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, he allocated such expenses in the ratio of House rent receipts to Business receipts at 51:49. As a result of that, 51% of such Maintenance expenses were disallowed

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

property’. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, he allocated such expenses in the ratio of House rent receipts to Business receipts at 51:49. As a result of that, 51% of such Maintenance expenses were disallowed

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

property’. In the absence of any details furnished by the assessee, he allocated such expenses in the ratio of House rent receipts to Business receipts at 51:49. As a result of that, 51% of such Maintenance expenses were disallowed

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

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

disallowed as it was not made in the original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4. However, the assessee failed to furnish any supporting evidence to prove the payment of interest on housing loan taken for the purpose of purchase of self occupied house property

KUMAR BUILDERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 567/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kumar Builders, 10Th Floor, Kumar Business Centre (Kbc) Opp. Pune Central, Bund Garden Road, Pune-411 001. Pan : Aacfk1478L .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

disallowance of income from house property and disallowance of incorrect claim of TDS credit vide his order dated 29.12.2016 passed

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 is justified, the assessee submits that the deduction u/s 24 and municipal taxes may be allowed to the assessee while computing the annual value of the various units.” 3. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that ground Nos.1 to 7 are inter-connected and are with respect to 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.

House Property'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

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.

House Property'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

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”].

disallowance in the appellant’s case was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and therefore, the issues raised by my predecessor in his order have not been addressed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. But judicial propriety requires that the decision of the Tribunal is followed as the facts and circumstances essentially are the same as were considered

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”].

disallowance in the appellant’s case was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and therefore, the issues raised by my predecessor in his order have not been addressed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. But judicial propriety requires that the decision of the Tribunal is followed as the facts and circumstances essentially are the same as were considered

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”].

disallowance in the appellant’s case was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal and therefore, the issues raised by my predecessor in his order have not been addressed by the Hon’ble Tribunal. But judicial propriety requires that the decision of the Tribunal is followed as the facts and circumstances essentially are the same as were considered

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

disallowance of Rs.55,292/- as interest on self-occupied house property under the head “Income from House Property”. As per the computation