ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

house had been transferred. In normal circumstances by executing an agreement to sell in respect of an immoveable property, a right in personam is created in favour of the transferee/vondee. When such a right is created in favour of the vendee, the vendor is restrained from selling the said property to someone else because the vendee, in whose favour

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house for itself. However, in the Assessee’s case, it is seen from the perusal of email correspondence that there are instances where the Assessee has been charged for the services for which it would not have paid as an independent enterprise. - Mere description of the services without demonstrating the specific service rendered by the AE is not sufficient

GOODYEAR SOUTH ASIA TYRES PVT.LTD,,AURNAGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, AURANGABAD

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

house for itself. However, in the Assessee’s case, it is seen from the perusal of email correspondence that there are instances where the Assessee has been charged for the services for which it would not have paid as an independent enterprise. - Mere description of the services without demonstrating the specific service rendered by the AE is not sufficient

RAM LAXMANRAO MITKARI,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -3, LATUR

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Housing & Land Development Trust Ltd [1986] 161 ITR 524 (SC) wherein it was held that when the Government has appealed against the award and the additional amount of compensation was deposited in the court, it was not taxable at that stage as the 4 ITA.No.574/PUN/2020 Sh Ram Laxmanrao Mitkari, Latur. additional compensation would not accrue as income when

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, you have accepted to own two flats.” 5.1 The Ld. AR brought our attention to the notice dated 11.03.2024 (copy at page 1 of the paper book) for penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act and submitted that the notice does not mention which limb of section 270A(9) is attracted. She submitted that the assessee made

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

House Building Society Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 39 (Punjab & Haryana)- legal Paper book pg no. 87- 90 5.15. Your Honour's, since, sec. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145 (1) (erstwhile 145A(b) of the Act does not determine the year of taxability where litigation is pending; and even though above judgements pertain to Assessment Years prior to Amendment

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-5, PUNE, PUNE vs. SANGAM PRESS PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.674/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Acit, Circle-5, Pune. Vs. Sangam Press Private Limited, 17-B, Sangam House, Sangam Press Road, Pune- 411038. Pan : Aaccs5995B Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadekar : Date Of Hearing : 10.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, [In Short The “Cit(A)”] Pune’S Din & Order No.Itba/Apl/S/250/2023- 24/1060642739(1), Dated 08.02.2024, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused.

housing projects only when the conditions in respect of sale of goods as aforesaid are satisfied. 6 ACCOUTING PRACTICE AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME CONSIDERED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICERS IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS. 7. The company in the AY 2016-17 has followed the project completion method and Assessment was completed without any variance vide order dated 23.12.2018. Similarly

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

2. Without prejudice to Ground No.1 the authorities below erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in concluding that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and hence it is a fit case for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) thereby levying and confirming penalty of Rs. 145&.282/-. Again the addition made in the assessment

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

145 Taxmann.com 442 [66 CCH 352 & 221 TTJ 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

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

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

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

145 (Old)/2015-16, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. 2 A.Y. : 2012-13 Shri Roashan Vishnu Pathare, Heard both the parties. Case file perused 2. Coming to Assessee’s first and foremost substantive ground raised in the instant appeal challenges correctness of both the lower authorities action disallowing section 54F deduction

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor 8 ITA.No.625/PUN./2024 is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 698, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case

RANGANATH SALKE,,PUNE vs. ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -8,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.701/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ranganath Salke, The Addl. Commissioner Plot No.2, Sector-2, Saraswati Vs Of Income Tax, Range-8, Niwas, Indrayani Nagar, Bhosari, Pune. Pune – 411026. Pan: Akxps 7012 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 27/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 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)-6, Pune, Order Dated 09.02.2018 Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 31.12.2013 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That Addition Made Of Rs.49,37,145/- By Restricting The Claim Of Agricultural Income Claimed By The Appellant At Rs .53 Lakhs & Thereby Treating The Same As Income From Other Sources, Is Not In Accordance With The Provision Of The Ac The Additions So Made Be Deleted Or In Alternate Reduced Substantially. Just & Props Relief Granted To The Appellant.

section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2013 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions & scheme of the Act it be held that addition made of Rs.49,37,145/- by restricting the claim of agricultural income claimed

M/S. EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 519/Pun/2015 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

145, Off. Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune-411 018 PAN : AABCE4323Q .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vishal Kalra & Shri S.S Tomar Revenue by : Shri Amol Kamat सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11.08.2021/12.08.2021 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 16.08.2021 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI

APPASO SAMPATRAO MANE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 7(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

145 days in filing the appeal, despite the\nappellant being non resident and explained sufficient cause for the delay by way\nof an affidavit.\n1.2 The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the appellant, an NRI\nresiding in the USA since 2014, did not access his registered email provided to\nPAN Database, after leaving India

INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, PUNE vs. M/S. YASH ASSOCIATES,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1164/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Income Tax Officer, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ward 12(1), Pune …. Vs. M/S. Yash Associates, 401, 4Th Floor, Shreepal Chambers, 481/C, Shaniwar Peth, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune – 411030 Pan: Aaafy6149E

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in failing to appreciate that first approval in respect of the housing project had been given by the Municipal Corporation on 17.3.2004 and the assessee should have completed the project by 31.3.2008, which it failed to do and therefore, it was not eligible