DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

Housing Finance Limited ITO, Ward 1, Ahmednagar 602, 6th Floor, Zero One IT Park, Vs. Mundhva Road, Ghorpadi, Pune – 411036 PAN: AACCG2265N (Cross Objector) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash Hiran Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 08-05-2025 Date of pronouncement : 12-06-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA

M/S. VARUN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 23(1)(c) of the IT Act. It was further submitted by LD AR that the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing & Construction, 72 taxmann.com 254 (Delhi) is challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. LD AR also placed reliance on the decision passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Pride Purple Properties

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

properties. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of the following issues: (a) Interest expenses (b) Unsecured loans 4. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

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

properties. It filed its return of income on 21.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.8,46,600/-. The case of the assessee was selected through CASS for limited scrutiny for verification of the following issues: (a) Interest expenses (b) Unsecured loans 4. Accordingly, statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra PAN : AAATP1435C Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.522/PUN/2023\n2. The Mumbai Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAATT4562C Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Housing Society, Kothrud, Pune\nas well at the office premise at 4-7, A J Crystal, Tilak Road, Pune, various\nincriminating documents were found and seized.\nShri Manoj Chhajed is found to be maintaining bank account with Axis\nBank bearing account no. 350010100056665. On examination of said bank\naccount, it is noticed that there are many credit entries from Kolkata

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PVT LTD, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House, Near Bhide Hospital, Savedi, Ahmednagar- 414003. PAN : AAACR8605D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 27.04.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune

RAJDEEP BUILDCON PRIVAT LIMITED, AHMEDNAGAR,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House, Near Bhide Hospital, Savedi, Ahmednagar- 414003. PAN : AAACR8605D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 27.04.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune

RAJDEEP BUILDCOM PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House, Near Bhide Hospital, Savedi, Ahmednagar- 414003. PAN : AAACR8605D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date of hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of pronouncement : 18.09.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: The above captioned three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 27.04.2022 passed by ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune

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 54. The Hon'ble HC held that since assessee was owner of a house property, he would be entitled to exemption under section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017

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 54. The Hon'ble HC held that since assessee was owner of a house property, he would be entitled to exemption under section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house, is rejected because Transaction leading to Capital\nGain itself is rejected and is treated as business income.\"\nAppellant prays for declaring claim of Long Term Capital Gain & u/s\n54F is valid and allowed, And declare that order is Bad in Law, being\nwithout application of mind and violative of powers of CIT(A).\n5) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

1. These Revenue’s three appeals for assessment year 2010-11 to 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s as many orders dated 27/04/2015, 10/02/2016 & 04/04/2017 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A) -1/67/2014-15, ABD/CIT(A)-1/43/2014-15, ABD/CIT(A) -1/58/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) (ii) in first and foremost and u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

1. These Revenue’s three appeals for assessment year 2010-11 to 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s as many orders dated 27/04/2015, 10/02/2016 & 04/04/2017 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A) -1/67/2014-15, ABD/CIT(A)-1/43/2014-15, ABD/CIT(A) -1/58/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) (ii) in first and foremost and u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

1. These Revenue’s three appeals for assessment year 2010-11 to 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-1 Aurangabad’s as many orders dated 27/04/2015, 10/02/2016 & 04/04/2017 passed in case No. ABD/CIT(A) -1/67/2014-15, ABD/CIT(A)-1/43/2014-15, ABD/CIT(A) -1/58/2016-17 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) (ii) in first and foremost and u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

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

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