LAXMINARAYAN RAMSWARUP MANIYAR,JALGAON vs. CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. PAN : AAQPM9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari Date of hearing : 21.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year

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.

105 ( Guj.), it was observed that there are various factors which affected the rental value of the premises, and the criterion of the reasonable return to the landlord from the property would be a fair criterion, and the percentage of the return on the value of the property adopted by the tribunal at 8.4% p.a. was held to be valid

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.

105 ( Guj.), it was observed that there are various factors which affected the rental value of the premises, and the criterion of the reasonable return to the landlord from the property would be a fair criterion, and the percentage of the return on the value of the property adopted by the tribunal at 8.4% p.a. was held to be valid

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.

105 ( Guj.), it was observed that there are various factors which affected the rental value of the premises, and the criterion of the reasonable return to the landlord from the property would be a fair criterion, and the percentage of the return on the value of the property adopted by the tribunal at 8.4% p.a. was held to be valid

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.

105 ( Guj.), it was observed that there are various factors which affected the rental value of the premises, and the criterion of the reasonable return to the landlord from the property would be a fair criterion, and the percentage of the return on the value of the property adopted by the tribunal at 8.4% p.a. was held to be valid

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.

105 ( Guj.), it was observed that there are various factors which affected the rental value of the premises, and the criterion of the reasonable return to the landlord from the property would be a fair criterion, and the percentage of the return on the value of the property adopted by the tribunal at 8.4% p.a. was held to be valid

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.

105 ( Guj.), it was observed that there are various factors which affected the rental value of the premises, and the criterion of the reasonable return to the landlord from the property would be a fair criterion, and the percentage of the return on the value of the property adopted by the tribunal at 8.4% p.a. was held to be valid

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of purchase price. Accordingly the Tribunal held that the provisions of 8 section 56(2)(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable. He submitted that since in the instant case the assessee had made the initial booking in the year

INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 2(3),, SOLAPUR vs. KAPURBA AND COMPANY, BARSHI, SOLAPUR

In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 2(47) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is a firm, engaged in the business of purchase and sale of land. The assessee conducts its business under the name and style as “Kapurba and Company”. The assessee filed its return of income declaring a total income of Rs.10,16,327/- which was processed

ARMED FORCES EX-OFFICERS MULTISERVICES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS NFAC, PUNE

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

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

105. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in not considering the Co-operative Banks as Co-operative Societies for the purpose of this section. The learned assessing officer erred in not taking cognisance of clarification published by CBDT vide circular no. 133 of 2007 dated 09 May 2007 wherein it was stated that provision of section 80P(4) are not applicable

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located at Sindh

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

105 & 106/PUN/2016 are three different partnership firms, relating to assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11, except in the case of ITA No.102/PUN/2016 which only relates to assessment year 2010- 11. 4. The issue which is raised in the present appeals is against penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Act by invoking provisions of Explanation

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