VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

house property in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to some arithmetical error, there was shortfall in disclosing that rental income but rental income from the above two properties was disclosed. We find some force

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

property. Assessee has invested Rs.26,50,000/- by assessment year of Kamadhenu Deposits with Canara Bank and it was utilized by the assessee for construction activity as and when required. He further submitted that even if the assessee could not substantiate the deposits made by him for the construction activity, the long term capital gains could have been taxed

SHARFUDDIN YUNUS KAZI ,RAIGAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.605/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-10 Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi, The Income Tax Officer, House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. S Pan: Asipk 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/06/2023 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 (Appeal)-2 [Ld.Cit(A)], Thane Dated 07.09.2020 For A.Y.2009-10 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Dated 28.03.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law Lower Authorities Erred In Treating The Transaction Of Sale Of Land At Village Pangaon, Tal: Panvel, Dist. Raigad, As Completed Sharfuddin Yunus Kazi [A]

House No.25, At Vadghar, V Ward-1, Raigad. Panvel, Raigad – 410208. s PAN: ASIPK 7994 Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Pramod Shingte – AR Revenue by Shri M.G.Jasnani – DR Date of hearing 17/04/2023 Date of pronouncement 28/06/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of ld.Commissioner

ARJUN BHAGARAM PARMAR,RATNAGIRI vs. WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.115/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arjun Bhagaram Parmar, Vs Ward-1, Room No. 11, Swar Vihar, Ratnagiri Garah Sankulan Sarang, Khend, Tal-Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpm4825M Appellant Respondent

158/- and the income from business is declared under presumptive profits u/s 44AD of the Act Rs. 7,64,159/-, loss from house property at Rs. 79,278/- and deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs. 37,407/-. But all these details remained to be submitted due to non filing of income tax return. Ld. AO has observed that the assessee

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

158\nТахтап 199 and Allahabad High Court in the case of Oxford Academy for\nCareer Development v. Chief CIT [20091.315 ITR 382\n29. All the three High Courts after examining the issue, in the light of the\nobject of Section 12A of the Act and Section 21 of the General Clauses Act\nheld that the order of the CIT passed

VILLO NOSHIR ANKLESARIA,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2281/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mrs. Villo Noshir Anklesaria Plot No.10/3, Sr. No.29, Dhunjibhoy & Sanas Compound, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune-411 048. Pan : Aazpa3341F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

house property, profit and gains of business & profession and other sources. The assessee has filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.14,46,578/- and the total income was assessed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) to Rs.58,98,783/- by the Assessing Officer on 29.12.2009. The Assessing Officer

OMPRAKASH B. TIWADI,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

house property and interest income. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2000-01 declaring loss of Rs.1,18,512/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.02.2002. Subsequently, the case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PARMAR PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 & 611/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 4, Pune …. Vs. Parmar Properties Pvt. Ltd., Office No.2A, Wing 1, Thacker House, 2418, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent East Street, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aabpc1016F

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Office No.2A, Wing 1, Thacker House, 2418, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent East Street, Pune – 411001 PAN: AABPC1016F अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Anil Kumar Chaware प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Kishore Phadke सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2018 Date of Hearing : 21.03.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: Both the appeals

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PARMAR PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.610 & 611/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 4, Pune …. Vs. Parmar Properties Pvt. Ltd., Office No.2A, Wing 1, Thacker House, 2418, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent East Street, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aabpc1016F

Properties Pvt. Ltd., Office No.2A, Wing 1, Thacker House, 2418, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent East Street, Pune – 411001 PAN: AABPC1016F अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Anil Kumar Chaware प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Kishore Phadke सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2018 Date of Hearing : 21.03.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: Both the appeals

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

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

House-keeping services (clause 8). (e) The relatives of the trustees of public charitable hospitals, the employees and their dependents are not to be included in the category of indigent and weaker section patients for the purpose of the said Scheme (clause 13). (emphasis supplied) 12.4.2 In context of aforestated mandates, we observed that, individually by grant of land

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

property sold and had claimed certain deduction i.e. u/s.54/54F of the Act on the presumption that he had invested in farm house under construction and therefore he was eligible to such deduction claimed. As regards the excess expenses, the appellant had 6 claimed the same in the accounts furnished before the AO and also in the return with a bona

ANIL SHRICHAND SADHWANI,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2443/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Anil Shrichand Sadhwani, V The Income Tax Officer, Chhatrapati Shivaji Hsg Soc, S Ward-2(1), Pune. Nashik Road, Jailroad, Nashik – 422101. Maharashtra. Pan: Annps1615D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/04/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 20/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: Thisappeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 23.09.2024 For Assessment Year 2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Ctt(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition U/S 50C Of Rs.6,15,600 By Taxing The Appellant'S Share In Difference Between Govt. Valuation Of Rs.2,52,31,000 & Actual Consideration Of Rs 2,40,00,000 Received On Sale Of Immovable Property As Income U/S 50C Without

house was completed in all respects in the month of May, 2015. The application for obtaining completion certificate before Nashik Muncipal Corporation (NMC) was filed in the month of July, 2015. The Certificate of the Architect dated 19.12.2017 affirming the above facts, which was also filed before the A.O. in the scrutiny asst, proceedings u/s 143(3) is attached herewith

RAJENDRA RAMESHLAL GUGALE,PUNE vs. PRINICIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

House No.B12, Income Tax (Central), Aayakar vs. Pune-Satara Road, Sadan, Bodhi Towers, Salisbury Bibwewadi, PUNE. Park, PUNE – 411 037. PIN – 412 202. Maharashtra. Maharashtra. PAN ABFPG6929E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT Date of Hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 30.12.2024 ORDER PER RAMA KANTA PANDA, V.P. : This appeal filed

SMT. RATNAPRABHA SATISH MUTHAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / Ita No.1294/Pun/2017 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt. Ratnaprabha Satish Muthal, At Post Hirawadi, Panchawati, Nashik. अपीऱाथी/Appellant Pan: Buipm6016K …. Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (4), …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

158 days in filing the appeal before Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Pune. Whatever is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Ratnaprabha Satish Muthal (Affiant) Place – Nashik Date – 16.05.2017” 3. On perusal of contents of Affidavit, it is noted that since the assessee was un-educated old woman and was suffering

M/S. CHAKRABARTY MEDICAL CENTRE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Chakrabarty Medical Centre, C-802, Palmdale, California Apartments, Nibm, Undri Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411060 …. Pan: Aabfc5809Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei

house tax was being paid in individual names, electric meter was also in their individual names. Even the sale consideration has been issued vide cheques in favour of Dr. M. Chakrabarty and his wife and hence, both of them being real owners of property had declared capital gains to the Income Tax Department and made necessary investment under the Capital

JOHN DEERE INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.905 & 906/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years :2007-08 & 2008-09

property or proprietary right in the software or the documentation. It is specifically provided that ‘Dakota’ retains sole and exclusive title to all portions of software and documentation and any copies thereof. 62. Now, coming to the second agreement which has been referred to by both the learned authorized representatives, which is placed at pages 14 to 17 of Paper