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

property has been claimed under Section 54F. 3. The amount claimed as a deduction under Section 54EC for investment in capital bonds is incorrect. At the outset the assessee states that provisions of 263 of the Act are inapplicable on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Provisions of Section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

Housing ITO, Ward – 2(2), Pune Plot No.15, 17, 19, B12, Paradigm Opal Vs. Balewadi, Pune – 411045 PAN: AADFI3770N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 25-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 25-10-2024 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP : These are cross appeals, the first

IMPERIAL HOUSING, PUNE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as the appeal filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

Housing ITO, Ward – 2(2), Pune Plot No.15, 17, 19, B12, Paradigm Opal Vs. Balewadi, Pune – 411045 PAN: AADFI3770N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 25-09-2024 Date of pronouncement : 25-10-2024 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP : These are cross appeals, the first

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

154 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 399 (MAD HC) - The assessee, sold a house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

154 ΤΑΧΜΑΝ 399 (MAD HC) - The assessee, sold a house property and purchased a property in name of his wife. The Assessee claimed exemption under section

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

LAXMINARAYAN RAMSWARUP MANIYAR,JALGAON vs. CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

154 before the CPC and the CPC issued the same intimation again with no change. 5. Being further aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee and directed the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO’) to delete the addition

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

house property loss disallowed and disallowance of Rs.2,398/- u/s 80TTA of the IT Act. 5. Since the assessee remained absent, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 5 6. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. Ld. AR appearing from side of the assessee submitted before

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

154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note that not only the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 10.3 to 10.3.5 has expressed agreement with the assessee’s contentions on all factual as well as legal aspects including that of “satisfaction” u/s. 14A (2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

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

154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note that not only the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 10.3 to 10.3.5 has expressed agreement with the assessee’s contentions on all factual as well as legal aspects including that of “satisfaction” u/s. 14A (2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

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

154 rectification dated 11.06.2014. Suffice to say, we note that not only the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in paras 10.3 to 10.3.5 has expressed agreement with the assessee’s contentions on all factual as well as legal aspects including that of “satisfaction” u/s. 14A (2) of the Act but also he concludes that the same ITA Nos. 2016 & 1694/PN/2017

RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, JALGAON

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property Rs.85,63,967/-. v. Disallowance of expenditure relating to Khar Flats Rs.7,61,579/-. vi. Addition of Godown Rent Rs.1,22,484/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances made by Assessing Officer

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. RAJMAL LAKHICHAND JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property Rs.85,63,967/-. v. Disallowance of expenditure relating to Khar Flats Rs.7,61,579/-. vi. Addition of Godown Rent Rs.1,22,484/-. Aggrieved by assessment order dated 26-09-2013, the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted the disallowances made by Assessing Officer

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

house property. In its application,\nthe assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is\ndistributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined\nas per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income\nexcept the portion of income which is not declared by any of the\nbeneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted