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.

3% of the aggregate built up area, 'whichever is higher'. In contrast, the provision earlier was 5% or 2000 sq.ft., 'whichever is less'. (g) From this provision, therefor, it is clear that the housing project contemplated under sub-section (10) of Section 80IB includes commercial establishments or shops also. Now, by way of an amendment in the form of Clause

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

3) read with section 10(21)\n11\n12\nCOME\nIncome claimed/ exempt under section 13A or 13B in case of a Political Party or Electoral Trust (Fill\nSchedule LA or ET)\nTAX DEPARTMEN\n12\n0\na\nIncome claimed/ exempt under section 13A\n12a\nb\nincome claimed/ exempt under section 13B\n12b\n13\nIncome not forming part of item

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

House Property Flat 3123 : Rs2,75,90,100 (Being higher of two flat values) Exemption Under Section 54F : Rs 2,62,26,573/- Exemption Under Section 54EC : Rs 50,00,000/- ............................. 20 Taxable Gain : Rs 7,74,10,936/- 5.4 Preliminary Objection of the assessee against the proceedings under section 263 of the Act 5.4.1 The assessee raised preliminary objection

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. 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

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. 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

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

House Property‟ instead of „Business Income‟. Further learned IT Authorities ought to have allowed corresponding expenditure like repairs / depreciation & other direct & indirect cost incurred to earn such income. 3. The issue arising in the present appeal is against the claim of exemption under section 10

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’

3 Kumar Properties and Real Estate Private Limited charging section of Chapter IV-C, `Income from house property’, which reads as under:- `The annual value of property consisting of any buildings or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee is the owner, other than such portions of such property as he may occupy for the purposes of any business

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

3 years from the date of transfer of original asset i.e. before 26/07/2019. Upon considering the facts of the case, I am inclined to agree with the appellant's claim. Section 54 of the Act in respect of investment made in the new house cannot be denied. I find force in the contentions made by the appellant Section

M/S. VARUN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 23 providing that where a property held as 'stock in trade' is not let out during the year, its annual value, after a period of one year or as revised to two years, shall be considered for the purposes of inclusion under the head 'Income from House property. This amendment has been brought out w.e.f. 01-04-2018. Thus

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) will not attracted vis-à-vis these properties. 6.9. The next contention of the appellant is that even if excess rent was paid to the trustee, the only effect of this would be that the trust would be denied the benefit of Section 11. But no addition

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) will not attracted vis-à-vis these properties. 6.9. The next contention of the appellant is that even if excess rent was paid to the trustee, the only effect of this would be that the trust would be denied the benefit of Section 11. But no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) will not attracted vis-à-vis these properties. 6.9. The next contention of the appellant is that even if excess rent was paid to the trustee, the only effect of this would be that the trust would be denied the benefit of Section 11. But no addition

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) will not attracted vis-à-vis these properties. 6.9. The next contention of the appellant is that even if excess rent was paid to the trustee, the only effect of this would be that the trust would be denied the benefit of Section 11. But no addition

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) will not attracted vis-à-vis these properties. 6.9. The next contention of the appellant is that even if excess rent was paid to the trustee, the only effect of this would be that the trust would be denied the benefit of Section 11. But no addition

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

3) of the Act. Therefore, the provisions of section 13(1)(c) will not attracted vis-à-vis these properties. 6.9. The next contention of the appellant is that even if excess rent was paid to the trustee, the only effect of this would be that the trust would be denied the benefit of Section 11. But no addition

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

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the PMC had categorically mentioned the subsequent plan approved on 2.8.2006 as "Revised Plan". This fact is clearly evident from the certificate itself which refer the proposal as "Revised" in the commencement certificate dtd. 2.8.2006. 4. The order

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

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the PMC had categorically mentioned the subsequent plan approved on 2.8.2006 as "Revised Plan". This fact is clearly evident from the certificate itself which refer the proposal as "Revised" in the commencement certificate dtd. 2.8.2006. 4. The order

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

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that the PMC had categorically mentioned the subsequent plan approved on 2.8.2006 as "Revised Plan". This fact is clearly evident from the certificate itself which refer the proposal as "Revised" in the commencement certificate dtd. 2.8.2006. 4. The order