VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

15. In this case the 'savings' provision in the repealing statute is not exhaustive of the rights which are saved or which survive the repeal of the statute under which such rights had accrued. In other words, whatever rights are expressly saved by the 'savings' provision stand saved. But, that does not mean that rights which are not saved

M/S. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE , , AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1St Floor, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, Ahmednagar. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaala0304R …. Vs. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar. …. ""यथ"/ Respondent

property. 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the wording of section 10(26AAB) of the Act provides ‘any income’ which is for the purpose of regulating marketing of agricultural produce means the ‘activities carried on by a concern which is regulating the marketing of agricultural produce’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.2771 & 2772/Pun/2017 "नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 M/S Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1St Floor, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, Ahmednagar. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaala0304R …. Vs. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar. …. ""यथ"/ Respondent

property. 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the wording of section 10(26AAB) of the Act provides ‘any income’ which is for the purpose of regulating marketing of agricultural produce means the ‘activities carried on by a concern which is regulating the marketing of agricultural produce’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2219/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agricultural Produce Market Committee, 1St Floor, Kisan Kranti Building, Market Yard, Station Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar – 414001 …. Pan: Aaala0304R Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

property. 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the wording of section 10(26AAB) of the Act provides ‘any income’ which is for the purpose of regulating marketing of agricultural produce means the ‘activities carried on by a concern which is regulating the marketing of agricultural produce’. In this regard, reliance was placed on the decision

ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

property has been claimed under Section 54F. 3. The amount claimed as a deduction under Section 54EC for investment in capital bonds is incorrect. At the outset the assessee states that provisions of 263 of the Act are inapplicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Provisions of Section

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

15,000/-, in our opinion, is not justified. We therefore hold that no penalty is leviable on the addition on account of notional house rent. 32. So far as the levy of penalty on account of income from house property in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned

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

15,000/-, in our opinion, is not justified. We therefore hold that no penalty is leviable on the addition on account of notional house rent. 32. So far as the levy of penalty on account of income from house property in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned

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’

section 23 w.e.f. 01.04.2018 reading as under:- `Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property, for the period

INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1164/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 12(1), Pune …. Vs. M/S. Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Chambers, 481/C, Shaniwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaafy6149E

Properties reported in 353 ITR 36 (Bom). The Assessing Officer however, distinguished the facts before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also did not accept the proposition laid down by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and reiterated that the project ‘Ravi Park’ shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which first approval

INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1164/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 12(1), Pune …. Vs. M/S. Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Chambers, 481/C, Shaniwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaafy6149E

Properties reported in 353 ITR 36 (Bom). The Assessing Officer however, distinguished the facts before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also did not accept the proposition laid down by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and reiterated that the project ‘Ravi Park’ shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which first approval

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1164/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 12(1), Pune …. Vs. M/S. Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Chambers, 481/C, Shaniwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaafy6149E

Properties reported in 353 ITR 36 (Bom). The Assessing Officer however, distinguished the facts before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court and also did not accept the proposition laid down by the Tribunal in assessee’s own case and reiterated that the project ‘Ravi Park’ shall be deemed to have been approved on the date on which first approval

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

15-10-2018 giving the following details: (Page 79) (a) Capital gains of loss computation statement (ii) Submission filed on 16-1-2019 giving the following details: (Page 80) 6 1. Balance sheet/statement of affairs along with detailed schedules 2. Bank account statement 3. Evidence is respect of investment made in properties 4. Evidence in investment in capital gains scheme

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

property and construction of residential and commercial buildings. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.119,8,31,267/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,02,32,288/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices

M/S. CITY CORPORATION LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

property and construction of residential and commercial buildings. It filed its return of income on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.119,8,31,267/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,02,32,288/- u/s 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟). The case was selected for scrutiny and accordingly, statutory notices

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

15,951/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.75,50,995/- under the head „Income from House Property‟ on account of notional rent in respect of unsold residential units held as stock-in-trade. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee was holding unsold units as stock-in-trade, which partake the character of stock. Therefore

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

15,951/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.75,50,995/- under the head „Income from House Property‟ on account of notional rent in respect of unsold residential units held as stock-in-trade. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee was holding unsold units as stock-in-trade, which partake the character of stock. Therefore

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

15 for A.Y. 2013-14 Mangilal L. Chowdhary (b) The income from such residential house, other than the one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset, is chargeable under the head "Income from house property" 11.2 In view of the facts mentioned by the AO in the assessment order, I hold that the appellant

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE vs. CHANAKYA MANDAL PARIWAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotethe Income Tax Officer M/S. Chanakya Mandal Pariwar (Exemptions) 1557, Sadashiv Peth Vs. Ward - 2, Pune Near Navi Peth Vitthalmandir Punne 411009 Pan – Aaatc6391G Appellant Respondent Co No. 06/Pun/2020 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Chanakya Mandal Pariwar The Income Tax Officer 1557, Sadashiv Peth (Exemptions) Vs. Near Navi Peth Vitthalmandir Ward - 2, Pune Punne 411009 Pan – Aaatc6391G Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 835/Pun/2017 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No. 06/Pun/2020 For Ay 2012-13 Arise From The Cit(A)-10, Pune’S Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)10/Ito Exmp Wd 1/44,45,46,47/15-16, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 174 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

10(23C) of I.T. Act, if CO No. 06/Pun/2020 M/s. Chanakya Mandal Pariwar they carry on commercial activities. Whether such an entity is carrying on an activity in the nature of trade, commerce, or business is a question of fact, which will be decided based on the nature, scope, extent and frequency of the activity. (xi) Now coming