SHETH CHIMANLAL GOVINDDAS MEMORIAL TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

109 taxmann 66 (SC)\n8. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT(Exemption), Assessee\nfiled appeal before this Tribunal.\n9. It is a fact that Assessee Trust is registered u/s.12AA of the\nAct. It is also fact that Prabodh Artha Sanchay is a related party as\ndefined in Section 13 of the Act. The same fact is admitted

SMT. ROHINI VALMIK GADHAVE,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -5, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt. Rohini Valmik Gadhave Vs. Pr.Cit-5, Pune C-Wing, Flat No.603, Mantra Properties, Moshi, Pune – 412105 Pan : Bkvpg9947G Appellant Respondent

Properties, Moshi, Pune – 412105 PAN : BKVPG9947G Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri B.C. Malakar Revenue by Shri Saradar Singh Meena Date of hearing 12-07-2022 Date of pronouncement 27-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JM : This assessee‟s appeal for AY 2015-16 arises against the PCIT-5, Pune‟s order dated 13-03-2020 passed in case

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property situated at Solapur was sold on 30.08.2016 for Rs.50,00,000/-. The cost of acquisition was stated to be Rs.53,00,000/-. The property was acquired on 16.02.2016. There was short term capital loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. Name of the purchaser, his PAN and his complete address was given. The three cheques drawn on Saraswat Bank bearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

Housing Finance Ltd. vs. PCIT, 161 Taxmann.com 213 iv) Malabar Industrial Co Ltd. vs. CIT, 109 Taxmann 66 v) PCIT vs. Clix Finance India P Ltd., 160 taxmann.com 357 vi) PCIT vs. SPPL Property Management (P) Ltd., 151 taxmann.com 103 vii) PCIT vs. Delhi Airport Metro Express P Ltd., 398 ITR 08 viii) Nipro India Corporation Pvt Ltd vs PCIT

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

109] which in turn relied on the decision rendered in present appellant’s case by the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 130 Taxmann.com 366 (SC), it is contended that the assessee has not categorized the rates for each service category i.e. (a) price charged for providing medical facilities free of cost/charity, (b) subsidized rates and (c) full rates

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 132(4A) are not applicable to the assessee. The\nRevenue has not taken the statements of any of the buyers to prove that they have\nin fact given any on-money over and above what is mentioned in the registered\nsale deed.\n19.\nReferring to page 66 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\ndrew

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

property has been executed and\nsecond is calculation of cash component as on-money. Similarly noting could be\nseen from the other documents seized during the search.\n5.3 Further, it is evident from the statement of Shirish Bhanudas Ranpise (Sales\nManager in Shree Balaji reality) that he has not only admitted the receipt of on\nmoney by the Assessee Firm

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 132. 23. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi-Trib) and Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. H. Omkarappa (HUF) vide ITA No.1634/Bang/2019, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said cases

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LL,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 132(4A) are not applicable to the assessee. The\nRevenue has not taken the statements of any of the buyers to prove that they have\nin fact given any on-money over and above what is mentioned in the registered\nsale deed.\n19. Referring to page 66 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\ndrew

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

property has been executed and\nsecond is calculation of cash component as on-money. Similarly noting could be\nseen from the other documents seized during the search.\n5.3 Further, it is evident from the statement of Shirish Bhanudas Ranpise (Sales\nManager in Shree Balaji reality) that he has not only admitted the receipt of on\nmoney by the Assessee Firm

SHREE BALAJI REALTY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

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

section 132. 23. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi-Trib) and Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. H. Omkarappa (HUF) vide ITA No.1634/Bang/2019, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said cases

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

109 Prop. Sagar Suraj Agrawal 5 M/s. Indian Steel 5,60,430 - 1,00,877 - 6,61,306 Traders Prop. Imran Khan 6 M/s. Rehan Enterprises 2,46,06,601 - 44,29,185 - 2,90,35,786 Total 8,82,71,173 6,07,100 1,50,00,480 1,66,000 10,40,44,752 18. Similarly, for assessment

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

House No.B12, Income Tax (Central), Aayakar vs. Pune-Satara Road, Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Bibwewadi, PUNE. Park, PUNE – 411 037. PIN – 412 202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

109\n5\nM/s. Indian Steel\nTraders Prop. Imran\nKhan\n5,60,430\n1,00,877\n6,61,306\n6\nM/s. Rehan Enterprises\nTotal\n2,46,06,601\n44,29,185\n2,90,35,786\n8,82,71,173\n6,07,100\n1,50,00,480\n1,66,000\n10,40,44,752\n18. Similarly, for assessment year

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

House, 3rd Floor, 2(1), Pune Lawani Plaza, B-Wing, Plot No.57/58, Sakorenagar, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411007 PAN: AANCS8819F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri Sangram Gaikwad Date of hearing : 25-08-2021 Date of pronouncement : 30-08-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate final

M/S. SAVA MEDICA LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal for the A

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.738, 739 & 740/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14

House, 3rd Floor, 2(1), Pune Lawani Plaza, B-Wing, Plot No.57/58, Sakorenagar, Viman Nagar, Pune – 411007 PAN: AANCS8819F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue by : Shri Sangram Gaikwad Date of hearing : 25-08-2021 Date of pronouncement : 30-08-2021 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : These three appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate final