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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

house property.\n3.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the case as per the provisions\nof section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2022 by recording\nas under:\n\"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nCIRCLE 7, PUNE\nTo\nKOLTE-PATIL\nLIMITED\nINTEGRATED\nTOWNSHIPS\nSURVEY

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

sections 11 and 12 shall apply in respect of any income derived from property held under trust of any assessment year preceding the aforesaid assessment year, for which assessment proceedings are pending before the Assessing Officer as on the date of such registration and the objects and activities of such trust or institution remain the same for such preceding assessment

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

145(3) of the Act during assessment proceedings of AY 2013-14 when reference to the DVO was made by him. In fact, the Ld. AO had no valid and cogent reason to reject the books of account maintained by the assessee and audited u/s 44AB and as per section 80IB(10) of the Act. 17. On the second issue

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

145(3) of the Act during assessment proceedings of AY 2013-14 when reference to the DVO was made by him. In fact, the Ld. AO had no valid and cogent reason to reject the books of account maintained by the assessee and audited u/s 44AB and as per section 80IB(10) of the Act. 17. On the second issue

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

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

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

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

PRIDE PURPLE BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 (1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.699/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pride Purple Builders Private The Deputy Limited, V Commissioner Income Pride House, 5Th Floor, S Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Near Pune University Circle, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aadcp 4286 H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M G Jasnani, Irs - Dr Date Of Hearing 03/10/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 04/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Dated 18.08.2022For A.Y.2015-16 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.11.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Pride Purple Builders Private Limited [A]

Section 57 of the Act. 5.4 The Ld. AR also relied on following decisions:  Vodafone South Ltd vs CIT ITA 334/2014 (Del High Court)  ITO vs Brahma Associates ITAT Pune ITA 133/PN/2014  DLF Info City Development vs ACIT ITA 894/Del/2018  Triumph Reality Pvt Ltd [2023] 148 taxmann.com 196 (Delhi) Submission of ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) : 6. The ld.Departmental Representative read

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

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

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

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

3 of seized bundle no. 6 and agreement\namount mentioned here is Rs.44,30,000/-. On a rough paper found in the\nfile, it is written page no. 5A of seized bundle no. 6, on this\nbasic cost written is Rs.42,75,000/- which is cash component over and\nabove of the agreement to sale value which has been taken