SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 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)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

14A is called for. Accordingly Ground No.2 of the Assessee is allowed. ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products Ltd.[A] Ground Number 3 - Deemed dividend u/s 2(22)(e) : 3. As per the Assessment order, the assessee has received Loan of Rs.1,00,00,000/- from Trenton Investment Company Pvt Ltd and Rs.11,12,387/- from

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.

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 u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, considering the submissions made before him that interest free funds as well as surplus reserve funds far exceeds the loans

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.

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 u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, considering the submissions made before him that interest free funds as well as surplus reserve funds far exceeds the loans

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.

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 u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, considering the submissions made before him that interest free funds as well as surplus reserve funds far exceeds the loans

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

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

3 of Appeal, appellant requests that the disallowance under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with rule 8D of the income Tax Rules, 1962 may please be restricted to only such expenditure which may have any nexus with earning of exempt income and exclude expenses having direct relation to earning taxable income. 5. The appellant requests that

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

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

3. This basis of the Assessing Officer is completely devoid of any merits, what\nthe section requires is that expenses must have been incurred for the purpose of\nearning income to be eligible to claim the same against the said income. There is\nno question of interpreting the term “income as profits”. The moment expenditure\nhas been incurred for earning

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

MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2945/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 13, Megaspace, Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcm2461K बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sakharam Sable Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 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)- 9, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “A) The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,86,352/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule- 8(D), While The Appellant Company Has Not Received Any Sum By Way Of Exempt Income. Further, The Appellant Company Has Not Made Any Additional Investments Generating Exempt Income During The Year. The Company Has Not Utilized Any Borrowed Funds For Investments. On The Similar Facts, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Deleted The Disallowance For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Same Has Been Upheld By Itat (Pune Bench) For A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, In The Light Of Various Judicial Decisions, This Disallowance Being Unwarranted Needs Cancellation. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Modify, Expand The Ground(S) Of Appeal & Lay/Produce The Evidence(S) At The Time Of Hearing.”

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at a total income of Rs.37,14,49,320/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer treated the income received from letting out its business premises “Cybercity” of Rs.1,33,25,92,479/- under the head ‘income from house property’ as against the claim of the assessee that it should be assessed

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]

3 M/s.Sukhwani Promoters and Builders [A] letting value of unsold flats at the year end is chargeable to tax under the head 'Income from house property'. At the same time, we find that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Neha Builders (P.) Ltd . [2007] 164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from

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

3 Atul Jaiprakash Goel house property’ or would partake of the character of Business income. In this regard, we find that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Sane and Doshi Enterprises (2015) 58 taxmann.com 111 (Bom.) has dealt with a similar issue and held that the rental income received from unsold portion of the property constructed

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

3. The Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground in the foregoing lead case seeks to revive section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) disallowance of Rs.15,72,97,942/- made in the assessment order dated 14.03.2014 as rectified to the extent of Rs.12,53,86,012/- in his section 154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

3. The Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground in the foregoing lead case seeks to revive section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) disallowance of Rs.15,72,97,942/- made in the assessment order dated 14.03.2014 as rectified to the extent of Rs.12,53,86,012/- in his section 154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

3. The Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground in the foregoing lead case seeks to revive section 14A r.w. Rule 8D(2)(ii) & (iii) disallowance of Rs.15,72,97,942/- made in the assessment order dated 14.03.2014 as rectified to the extent of Rs.12,53,86,012/- in his section 154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note

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.

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,14,31,733/- under the head “income from house property”, which was vacant during the whole of year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3

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.

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,14,31,733/- under the head “income from house property”, which was vacant during the whole of year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3

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.

3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought to tax a sum of Rs.1,14,31,733/- under the head “income from house property”, which was vacant during the whole of year under consideration. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3