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

sections": [ "139(1)", "132", "153A", "143(2)", "142(1)", "24(b)", "14A", "8D", "57(iii)", "36(1)(iii)", "28(v)", "VI-A" ], "issues": "1. Whether the denial of carry forward of House Property

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax notional annual value of flats unsold of Rs.1,05,000/- under the head “Income from house property”. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the issue relating to the disallowance of interest

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax notional annual value of flats unsold of Rs.1,05,000/- under the head “Income from house property”. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the issue relating to the disallowance of interest

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

section 43B of the Act. The Assessing Officer also brought to tax notional annual value of flats unsold of Rs.1,05,000/- under the head “Income from house property”. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the issue relating to the disallowance of interest

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 14A of the Act. It is also his submission that the disallowance, if any, u/s 14A read with Rule 8D should be applicable only to such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning exempt income and not extend the disallowance to expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 11. We find some force in the above arguments

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]

house property' after one/two years from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained on and from the A.Y. 2018- 19. Instantly, we are concerned with the assessment year 2013-14. As such, the amendment cannot apply to the year under consideration. In the absence of the applicability

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 u/s. 14A

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 u/s. 14A

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.684/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kumar Properties & Real Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. Estate Pvt. Ltd., 1St Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rajan R. Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 19.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.08.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 23.02.2018 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of The Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Promoter & Developer Of The Housing Project. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year

housing project. The return of income for the assessment year 2 2014-15 was filed on 05.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.38,91,11,289/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-14, Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 26.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

ATUL JAIPRAKASH GOEL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

house property’. This ground is, therefore, allowed. 6. The only other ground which survives for consideration is the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.2,01,816/- made by the AO u/.s.14A of the Act. 7. The facts of this ground are that the assessee was in receipt of certain exempt income. No disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was offered. On being

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

house property 9. Reduction in profit due to ICDS 10. International transaction(s) 11. Loss from currency fluctuations 03. The assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 26/02/2022 determining total income of Rs.455,25,53,250/- (Rs.722,11,90,423/- as per computation sheet). 04. On subsequent review

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 ,PUNE, PUNE vs. AMITKUMAR GAJENDRAKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI , PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

ARIHANT PATNI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7, PUNE, PUNE vs. ASHOKKUMAR SOBHAGMAL, PATNI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

14A of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the above disallowances, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order confirmed the addition made under the head “income from house property”. However, the ld. CIT(A) held that the income earned under the head “PMS” should be assessed under the head “capital gains” following the earlier