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.

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 can be made to the total income of the trust

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.

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 can be made to the total income of the trust

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.

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 can be made to the total income of the trust

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.

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 can be made to the total income of the trust

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.

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 can be made to the total income of the trust

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction has been

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction has been

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction has been

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction has been

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction has been

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

11,104/-. The CIT(A) elaborately considered the issue and upheld the levy of penalty. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 14. The first aspect of the issue raised by the assessee before us is that where no satisfaction has been

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

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

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

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, 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

house property in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to some arithmetical error, there was shortfall in disclosing that rental income but rental income from the above two properties was disclosed. We find some force

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

house property in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to some arithmetical error, there was shortfall in disclosing that rental income but rental income from the above two properties was disclosed. We find some force

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

11 of the Act and Section 13 of the Act, are\nreproduced here as under :\nIncome from property held for charitable or religious purposes.\n11. (1) Subject to the provisions of sections 60 to 63, the following\nincome shall not be included in the total income of the previous year of\nthe person in receipt of the income

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 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)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

House Property and thus reduced the total income. In this case, it was only because of survey conducted by Department, the wrong claims were detected. The assessee had never voluntarily disclosed his wrong claims. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs N G technologies Ltd [2015] 370 ITR 7 (Delhi

SHRUTI PATNI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mrs. Shruti Patni Vs. Dcit, S.No.1A, Irani Market Circle-7, Pune Compound, Yerawada, Pune – 411006 Pan : Alsps5573R Appellant Respondent

house property b) In not appreciating that the assessee has taken reasonable efforts to let out the property and hence by applying the provisions of section 23(1)(c) r.w.s. 23(1)(a) the annual value of the property should be taken at „Nil‟. 2. Without prejudice to above, in confirming the computation of annual value @ Rs.52 per sq. feet

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

11. The next plea of assessee was that it was reimbursement of expenses and not taxable. The CIT(A) referred to Circular No.715 of CBDT, dated 08.08.1995 and held that the same as not correct. The CIT(A) held that the assessee should have deducted tax at source on the payments made for reimbursement of payments made for acquiring software