VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

House Property'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

House Property'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

house and claimed the deduction u/s 54F or would have deposited the amount in bonds to claim deduction u/s 54EC, wherein the lock in period is of 3 years only. Instead on claiming exemption u/s 54F, I would have claim deduction u/s 54GB which says that the capital gain on transfer of property not be charged if the consideration

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

house property, short term capital gain, income from other sources and agricultural 5 income. The Assessing Officer(AO) in the assessment order observed that assessee had deposited cash in the bank account between 11.11.2016 to 01.12.2016 as under: Date Name of Bank Account Amount(Rs.) 10-11-2016 Corporation Bank 2,00,000/- 11-11-2016 Corporation Bank

INCOME-TAX OFFICER (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE vs. CHANAKYA MANDAL PARIWAR,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripotethe Income Tax Officer M/S. Chanakya Mandal Pariwar (Exemptions) 1557, Sadashiv Peth Vs. Ward - 2, Pune Near Navi Peth Vitthalmandir Punne 411009 Pan – Aaatc6391G Appellant Respondent Co No. 06/Pun/2020 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) M/S. Chanakya Mandal Pariwar The Income Tax Officer 1557, Sadashiv Peth (Exemptions) Vs. Near Navi Peth Vitthalmandir Ward - 2, Pune Punne 411009 Pan – Aaatc6391G Cross Objector Appellant In Appeal Assessee By: Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.07.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, Jm This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No. 835/Pun/2017 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No. 06/Pun/2020 For Ay 2012-13 Arise From The Cit(A)-10, Pune’S Order Dated 30.01.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)10/Ito Exmp Wd 1/44,45,46,47/15-16, Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 174 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short The Act).

115(4) (a) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act. 1957, charitable purpose includes relief of the poor, education and medical relief but does not include a purpose that relates exclusively to religious teaching. It more or less conforms to the definition of charitable purposes as defined u/s 2(15) of I.T. Act. Apart from the above, there are plethora

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

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

HOTEL SURYA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WAD-11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

115 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2017- 18 and a delay of 78 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2021-22 before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with

HOTEL SURYA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 11(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

115 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2017- 18 and a delay of 78 days in filing of the appeal for assessment year 2021-22 before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed separate condonation application along with affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation applications filed along with

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 12(1),, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.159/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs . Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Cross Objection No.01/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.159/Pun/2018) िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 The Income Tax Officer, M/S.Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Ward-12(1), Pune. Vs. Chambers, 481/C, Shanivar Peth, Pune – 411030. Pan: Aaafy 6149 E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajiv Thakkar – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal Ita No.159/Pun/218 With Assessee’S Cross Objection Co No.01/Pun/2022 For The A.Y. 2014-15, Arise Against The Cit(A)-8, Pune’S Order Dated 17.10.2017 Passed In Case No.Pn/Cit(A)-8/Acit Cir-12/293/2017-18/284, In Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused.

Properties (supra). In the case before the Hon'ble High Court, Assessee had' claimed deduction u/s 80IB (10) of the Act for a Building 'E' which was constructed after the advent of Section 80IB (10) of the Act. Prior to that, buildings A to D were constructed before the advent of section 80IB

SHRI BALASAHEB VITTHALRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income

SMT. SUSHMA BALASHEB KADAM,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income

SMT. SUSHMA BALASAHEB KADAM,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income

SHRI BALASAHEB VITTHALRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income

SMT. SUSHMA BALASAHEB KADAM,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income

SHRI. BALASAHEB VITTHALRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income

SHRI. BALASAHEB VITTHALRAO KADAM,PUNE vs. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No Ita No. Appellant Respondent A.Y. 1-3 976/Pun/2025 Shri Vitthalrao Namdeo Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 978/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Asgpk7498A 4-7 979/Pun/2025 Shri Balasaheb Vitthalrao Kadam Acit, 2016-17 980/Pun/2025 18, Sukhawani Fortune, Morwadi Central Circle 2017-18 1004/Pun/2025 Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2020-21 1005/Pun/2025 Pan: Abapk8131B 2018-19 8-10 981/Pun/2025 Smt. Sushma Balasaheb Kadam Acit, 2016-17 To A-6, Sukhawani Residency, Plot Central Circle 2017-18 983/Pun/2025 No.32, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 2(4), Pune 2018-19 Pan: Ambpk0804D Assessee By : S/Shri B C Malakar & Yuvaraj Chavan Department By : Shri Rajesh Haladkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 30-10-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-10-2025 O R D E R

house for which he was not paying any rent. Therefore, the perquisite value of Rs.5,94,000/- was estimated in the statement recorded and admitted as income over and above the regular income which had remained to be taxed. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of the same and determined the total income