YOGITA MANOJ TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. ITO 12(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yogita Manoj Tatooskar, V The Income Tax Officer, 504, Anandban, Chs, Ashok S Ward-12(1), Pune. Path, Maharashtra – 411004. Pan: Abopt9276A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Miss Indira R Adkil – Add.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13; Dated 28.10.2024; Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.11.2013. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Submit The

Property vide order under section 143(1) of the Act, dated 15.11.2013. Ld.AR invited our attention to order under section 143(1) of the Act, wherein Assessee had claimed Income from House

M/S. VARUN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House Property u/s. 22, it is submitted that the unsold units were vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. Nil in view of the provisions of section 23(1)(c) and hence, the entire addition made by the learned A.O. may kindly be deleted. 5] Without prejudice to the above grounds

ARUNKUMAR PURSHOTAMLAL KHANNA,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (CIRCLE), PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.181/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Arunkumar Purshotamlal Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. Khanna, Flat No.3123/3124, Clover Palisades, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune- 411048. Pan : Agipk3043K Appellant Respondent

143(3) being erroneous: 1. The deduction claimed under Section 54F for investment in two house properties against sale of capital

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

Housing Finance Limited ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar 602, 6th Floor, Zero One IT Park, Vs. Mundhva Road, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411036 PAN: AACCG2265N (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash Hiran Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 08-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and 142(1) of the Act were issued and served on the assessee, to which the assessee replied from time to time. 2 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has e-mailed Deed of Assignment dated

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

section 24 means not only the ownership of property but also getting possession simultaneously therefore, interest on borrowed money utilized for payment of compensation to the statutory tenant was allowable as deduction (if not U/sec.23) U/sec. 24 of the IT Act' 1961. c. Borrowed money was utilized for acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

section 24 means not only the ownership of property but also getting possession simultaneously therefore, interest on borrowed money utilized for payment of compensation to the statutory tenant was allowable as deduction (if not U/sec.23) U/sec. 24 of the IT Act' 1961. c. Borrowed money was utilized for acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property

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

143(3) was passed on\n31/01/2014 assessing total income at Rs.13,17,230/-.\nSearch u/s 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted on 04/11/2017 in the\ncase of Ashok B Jain & Others. The case of Shri Manoj M Chhajed is one\nof the cases belonging to Ashok B Jain & Others group. During the course\nof search conducted

MANGALAM TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1),, PUNE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.173/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Managalam Technology Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, A-102, Palladium 46-C, Nathan Vs Ward-14(1), Pune. Road, Off Mangaldas Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aaecm 8717 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2022 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(Appeals)-7, Pune Dated 20.11.2018 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Passed Us 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2) The Hon.Cit(A) Erred

section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1.The Hon. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed us 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2) The Hon.CIT(A) erred a) Confirming the reimbursement of society

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. This return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act and the excess refund was granted to the assessee

SHRIKANT VISHWANATH GOGATE,,PUNE vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT/TP),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap(K/Z) & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 54F of the Act could be given to the assessee when the transfer is of any capital asset other than the house property. The assessee has submitted that along with land, residential house has also been transferred i.e. „JAGDISH Bunglow‟ situated at CTS No.781, Final Plot No.128/1, TPS1, Shivajinagar. In the Development Agreement, there is reference of land

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house, is rejected because Transaction leading to Capital\nGain itself is rejected and is treated as business income.\"\nAppellant prays for declaring claim of Long Term Capital Gain & u/s\n54F is valid and allowed, And declare that order is Bad in Law, being\nwithout application of mind and violative of powers of CIT(A).\n5) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

143(2) and 142(1) of the Act in response to which the AR of the assessee filed the requisite details from time to time. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee, in the original return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act, has shown income from self occupied house property

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

143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid returns of income, additional income was offered. In respect of partnership firms, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that seized documents were found at the premises of assessee and her husband. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that statement of Shailesh Joshi was recorded

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

143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid returns of income, additional income was offered. In respect of partnership firms, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that seized documents were found at the premises of assessee and her husband. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that statement of Shailesh Joshi was recorded

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

143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid returns of income, additional income was offered. In respect of partnership firms, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that seized documents were found at the premises of assessee and her husband. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that statement of Shailesh Joshi was recorded

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

143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid returns of income, additional income was offered. In respect of partnership firms, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that seized documents were found at the premises of assessee and her husband. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that statement of Shailesh Joshi was recorded

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

143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid returns of income, additional income was offered. In respect of partnership firms, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that seized documents were found at the premises of assessee and her husband. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that statement of Shailesh Joshi was recorded

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

143(3) of the Act. In the aforesaid returns of income, additional income was offered. In respect of partnership firms, the learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that seized documents were found at the premises of assessee and her husband. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that statement of Shailesh Joshi was recorded