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

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-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

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

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

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

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

section 57(iii) of the IT Act, deduction of interest\npaid shall be allowed as deduction only if it is laid out wholly and exclusively for\nthe purpose of making or earning such income. As is evident from the above table,\nthe assessee has received interest @21% on the amount of loans given to M/s\nGagan I Land Township

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

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

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

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

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

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S.GOLDEN TRELLIS DEVELOPMENTS,, PUNE

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2549 & 2550/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Golden Trellis Ward-2(2), Pune. Vs Developments, S.No.38(1), 779, Balewadi, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaaag 6124 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Shivraj B More – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune, Dated 08.08.2016 & 12.08.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. The Appellant Revenue In A.Y.2012-13 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Assessee Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.24,39,34,737/- U/S 80Ib(10) For A.Y.2012-13, When The Assessee Had Failed To Obtain The Completion Certificate From The Local Authority Within The Stipulated Due Date 31.03.2012 As Per Provisions Of Section 80Ib(10)(A) Of The I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact The That The Occupancy Certificate

Section 80IB(10)(a) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact the that the occupancy certificate ITA No’s.2549 & 2550/PUN/2016for A.Y. 2012-13 & 13-14 M/s.Golden Trellis Developments (R) issued by licensed architect was rejected by the PMC within 21 days from date of receipt

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S.GOLDEN TRELLIS DEVELOPMENTS,, PUNE

In the result, both appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2549 & 2550/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Golden Trellis Ward-2(2), Pune. Vs Developments, S.No.38(1), 779, Balewadi, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aaaag 6124 C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe & Shri Shivraj B More – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 26/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 21/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Pune, Dated 08.08.2016 & 12.08.2016 For The A.Y. 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. The Appellant Revenue In A.Y.2012-13 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Erred In Allowing The Assessee Claim Of Deduction Of Rs.24,39,34,737/- U/S 80Ib(10) For A.Y.2012-13, When The Assessee Had Failed To Obtain The Completion Certificate From The Local Authority Within The Stipulated Due Date 31.03.2012 As Per Provisions Of Section 80Ib(10)(A) Of The I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact The That The Occupancy Certificate

Section 80IB(10)(a) of the I.T.Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact the that the occupancy certificate ITA No’s.2549 & 2550/PUN/2016for A.Y. 2012-13 & 13-14 M/s.Golden Trellis Developments (R) issued by licensed architect was rejected by the PMC within 21 days from date of receipt

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

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

29,041/- per month and worked out ALV at Rs.75,48,492/- in AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. After allowing standard deduction @ 30%, the Ld. AO determined the ALV at Rs.52,83,945/- which he added to the income of the assessee under the head ‘income from house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

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

29,041/- per month and worked out ALV at Rs.75,48,492/- in AY 2016-17 and 2017-18. After allowing standard deduction @ 30%, the Ld. AO determined the ALV at Rs.52,83,945/- which he added to the income of the assessee under the head ‘income from house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment