AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra PAN : AAATP1435C Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.522/PUN/2023\n2. The Mumbai Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAATT4562C Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील

ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , PANVEL vs. EPYGEN BIOTECH PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Property Act, 1882 (4 of 1882), the date on which he has so taken or retained possession of such land or part ; (ii) notwithstanding anything contained in clause (i), where an asset representing expenditure of a capital nature incurred before the 1st day of April, 1967, ceases to be used in a previous year for scientific research related

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 194 IA vide the Finance (No. 2) Act, 2019, wherein in the definition of the term 'consideration for transfer of any immovable property' is defined to include "all charges of the nature of club membership, car parking fee, electricity or water 13 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) facility fee, maintenance fee, advance fee or any other charges

M/S SUKHWANI PROMOTORS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & The Principal Builders, Vs Commissioner Of Income 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Tax, (Central), Pune. Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Abrfs 1253 P Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Jitendra Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Dated 24.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Act For A.Y.2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1 & 2. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & Builders [A]

ia) of the Act. 5. The PCIT erred in holding that the interest on TDS of Rs.17,385/- is N.A. not an allowable expense and the AO has failed to examine the issue and thereby directed the AO to pass a fresh assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act.” Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR filed paper book. The ld.AR

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPN. PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Housing Pune Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. 2409, East Street Camp, Pune - 411001 PAN: AAACK7659N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 03-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 18-08-2025 PER R. K. PANDA, VP : ITA No.2875/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee and ITA No.341/PUN/2025 filed by the Revenue are cross

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

Housing Pune Corporation Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. 2409, East Street Camp, Pune - 411001 PAN: AAACK7659N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 03-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 18-08-2025 PER R. K. PANDA, VP : ITA No.2875/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee and ITA No.341/PUN/2025 filed by the Revenue are cross

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

13,900/- on the basis of agreement value and therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are applicable. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions Vs. DIT (supra), deleted the addition in respect of 6 certain flats where the difference is less

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In this case, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee advanced loans to the sister concerns amounting to Rs.9,28,96,036/-, on which no interest was charged. As per the Assessing Officer, on one hand assessee was paying interest on funds borrowed and claiming the same as deduction while on the other

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

13. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. In this case, the Assessing Officer noted that assessee advanced loans to the sister concerns amounting to Rs.9,28,96,036/-, on which no interest was charged. As per the Assessing Officer, on one hand assessee was paying interest on funds borrowed and claiming the same as deduction while on the other

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

13. We further notice that the assessee filed the details in reply to each of the issues referred by ld. AO in the notice u/s.142(1) of the Act which have been duly examined by ld. AO except for the issue of addition of Rs.82,64,73,532/- towards purchase of property u/s.69B r.w.s.115BBE of the Act. 14. We observe

RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

13] Thus, the Assessing Officer and also the Tribunal have ■ correctly appreciated and interpreted the Power of Attorney/s, the agreement dated 30-4-2001 ana the Stand taken by the assessee in reply to the notice under section 148. [Para 14]. 5.5 In the case of Bertha T Almeida (2015) 53 taxmann.com 522 (Bom),it has been held as under

RAJESH MOHANLAL BORA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (1),, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1609/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rajesh Mohanlal Bora, 401, Rushiraj House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 Pan : Abcpb5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Ito Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Nashik [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/08/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Dove Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 29/12/2016 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By Income Tax Officer 1(1), Nashik [For Short “Ao”] For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2014-15. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 8

House, Thatte Nagar, College Road, Nashik – 422 005 PAN : ABCPB5526F . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. ITO Ward- 1(1) Nashik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee by : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 03/10/2022 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 20/12/2022 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

property to the DVO arises regular prices, therefore there was no occasion for Ld. CIT(A), to refer the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the matter of valuation of some of the flats/ shops should be referred to the DVO. Accordingly

BHUJBAL BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

property to the DVO arises regular prices, therefore there was no occasion for Ld. CIT(A), to refer the matter to the DVO. Accordingly, we do not find any substance in the arguments of Ld. Counsel of the assessee that the matter of valuation of some of the flats/ shops should be referred to the DVO. Accordingly