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

house property in day- to-day business activity requirements. This admittedly is not the Revenue’s case that the assessee has been managing his business activities from any other place. We accordingly delete rent disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in these peculiar circumstances. 4. The assessee does not press for his third substantive ground of challenging section 41(1) - cession

M/S. GREAT FORTUNE INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2017 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & The Assistant Commissioner Of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Shop No.6, Rushiraj Heights, Near Cirlce-1, Nashik. Nmc Water Tank, Parijat Nagar, Mahatma Nagar, Nahik. Pan: Aaccg 6406 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

house property. However, it is the decision of the co-ordinate Bench in the case of Makrupa Chemicals (P) Ltd. (2007) 108 ITD 95/12 SOT 68 (Mum) that the standard rent is the upper limit for determining the annual value. The above synopsis goes well with the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

sections 54 & 54F as well. 8. It is submitted before Your Honour that it is not in dispute that the property which was purchased by the appellant and claimed exemption U/sec. 54F is the bungalow along with land, which is house property as per municipal records and taxes have also been paid as residential property. It is further submitted that

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

house property. Out of 22,70,000/-, rent received for the FY 2019-20 is Rs 7,70,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs 15,00,000/- is in reference with the arrears of rent received pertaining to the previous year for a period of 6 months viz-a-viz 2,50,000/- per month from October

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

property at 70, Koregaon Park, it is now settled legal issue that the expenditure by Serum Institute of India Ltd. constitutes an allowable expenditure so long as there are revenue in nature. Regarding the expenditure of capital nature of same analogy, assessee only wanted allowability of depreciation on the said capitalised expenditure considered for business purposes. 56. On hearing both

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

House Property\n37,800\nC\nIncome from business/profession\nas per Sch.BP of ITR\n(-)*44,70,811\nD\nAdd : Disallowances/Additions\nIncome from sale of TDR [Para 5.3] | ₹5,31,95,834\nE\nIncome from other sources\n14,20,893\nGross Total income\n5,31,83,716\nLess : Deduction under Chapter VI-\nA claimed\n1,62,538\nE\nTotal Assessed Income

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. s PAN: ASIPK 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 17/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner

SHARAD SHAMRAO SAWANT ,SANGLI vs. ASSESTANT COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

108 of the Customs Act were considered in the adjudication proceedings. The Hon‟ble High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal that the value of gold was liable to be included in the income of the assessee as the source of investment in 4 ITA No.2626/PUN/2024, AY 2019-20 the gold or of its acquisition was not explained and that

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO. ,NANDED vs. ACIT, CIRCLE , NANDED

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

108 of the Customs Act were considered in the adjudication proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal that the value of gold was liable to be included in the income of the assessee as the source of investment in the gold or of its acquisition was not explained and that the assessee was not entitled

YASH CONSTRUCTION CO.,LATUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

108 of the Customs Act were considered in the adjudication proceedings. The Hon'ble High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal that the value of gold was liable to be included in the income of the assessee as the source of investment in the gold or of its acquisition was not explained and that the assessee was not entitled

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor 8 ITA.No.625/PUN./2024 is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 698, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

108 (P & H) to conclude that the CIT(A)’s direction in issue restricting the impugned section 14A r.w. Rule 8D disallowance could not exceed the exempt income figure itself. We thus reject the Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground for this precise reason alone. 3.1 Next comes the Revenue’s Second substantive ground that