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.

property i.e. builders. The housing project undertaken by the assessee was approved by the competent authority and accordingly, assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act of 100% of the profit from the housing project. We noted that Chapter XII BA i.e. special provisions relating to certain persons other than a company was introduced by the Finance

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

house property of the appellant as assessed by learned AO. It shall be appreciated the fact that Sec 10(26AAB) of ITA, 1961 excludes in express terms only "any income of an agricultural produce market committee or board constituted under any law for the time being in force for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural produce". It does

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

house property of the appellant as assessed by learned AO. It shall be appreciated the fact that Sec 10(26AAB) of ITA, 1961 excludes in express terms only "any income of an agricultural produce market committee or board constituted under any law for the time being in force for the purpose of regulating the marketing of agricultural produce". It does

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

29,598/-. 2. The learned CIT(A)-2 erred in law and on facts in holding that the exemption u/s 10(26AAB) is allowed only to such income which is derived from activities which are for promoting the agriculture marketing activities. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that section 10(26AAB) provides exemption to any income earned

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

10. Long-term Capital [9-6-7] Rs.2,26,33,135 Property Purchased (i) Date of purchase 29-7-2016 (ii) Details of the new asset Plot no.475, Anand Nagar Sahakari, (Purchase deed enclosed) Gruharchana Sanshta (iii) Consideration paid stamp Rs.1,57,78,000 duty & etc. (iv) Amount deposited in capital Rs.68,56,000 gain A/c (v) Exemption claimed Rs.2

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

29,880/- and the additional income offered in the statement of facts is Rs.53,88,920/-, out of which Rs.50 lakh was offered as buffer income and Rs.3,88,920/- was offered as notional rental income on house property. The addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/- on income from salary was made by the Settlement Commission in its order

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

29,880/- and the additional income offered in the statement of facts is Rs.53,88,920/-, out of which Rs.50 lakh was offered as buffer income and Rs.3,88,920/- was offered as notional rental income on house property. The addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/- on income from salary was made by the Settlement Commission in its order

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. ASWANI DEVELOPERS, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.576/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Circle-8, Pune Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / It(Ss)A Nos.02 & 03/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner Of M/S. Aswani Developers, Income Tax, Vs Second Floor, S.P. Heights, Central Circle-2(2), Pune Mumbai-Pune Road, Kasarwadi, Pune 411 034 Pan : Aarfa0761H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue

housing project is to be allotted to the individual or the spouse or the minor children of such individual or Hindu Undivided Family in which such individual was the Karta or any person representing such individual, then where the assessee has violated the provisions of the Act, would not be eligible for the claim of deduction under section 80IB(10

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

house property has to be the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto and not merely the holder of an interest therein. If that is the explicit meaning given to the word "property" in section 22, any other meaning to the same word appearing in section 24(b) cannot be ascribed. What is referred to in this section

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

house property has to be the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto and not merely the holder of an interest therein. If that is the explicit meaning given to the word "property" in section 22, any other meaning to the same word appearing in section 24(b) cannot be ascribed. What is referred to in this section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

section 80IB(10) disallowance made by the Assessing Officer to the tune of Rs.2,43,29,955/- in his assessment order dated 30.12.2016, as under: “5. In Ground No.1 the appellant has contended that it be allowed deduction u/s. 80IB(10) as it has fulfilled the conditions stipulated under the relevant provisions. In its written submissions dated 12.08.2017, the appellant

M/S. K.D. CONSTRUCTIONS UNIT - 1,,PUNE vs. ASSSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

29,370/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of aforesaid housing project consisting of three Buildings A, B and C. Similarly, in the return of income for assessment year 2010-11, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.53,62,222/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Initial building plan

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. K.D. CONSTRUCTION UNIT - 1,, PUNE

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed and appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

29,370/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) in respect of aforesaid housing project consisting of three Buildings A, B and C. Similarly, in the return of income for assessment year 2010-11, the assessee claimed deduction of Rs.53,62,222/- u/s. 80IB(10) of the Act. Initial building plan

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

10. In dealing with the identical argument as was raised before us and on interpretation of Section 57, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:- "The determination of the question before us turns on the true interpretation of Section 57(iii) and it would. therefore, be convenient to refer to that section, but before

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

10,72,191/- being disallowance made u/s 14A r/w Rule 8D, without giving the AO opportunity to remove any defect, if at all caused by non-mention of the satisfaction. Any such requirement was wrongly read by the Tribunal ? 3…. 4. Regarding question no.(c):- (a) In its return of income, the respondent made a suo-moto disallowance of Rs.15.21

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”].

29 taxman.com 303 (Delhi). A.Y. 2016-17 1. Whether Hon’ble ITAT is justified in allowing deduction u/s 80IA(4)(iii) as the commencement of Industrial Park is delayed by more than one year. 2. The ITAT has erred for not appreciating the facts that the conditions laid down in the section are to be satisfied cumulatively and non fulfillment