DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

house property.\n3.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the case as per the provisions\nof section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2022 by recording\nas under:\n\"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA\nMINISTRY OF FINANCE\nINCOME TAX DEPARTMENT\nOFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT\nCOMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX\nCIRCLE 7, PUNE\nTo\nKOLTE-PATIL\nLIMITED\nINTEGRATED\nTOWNSHIPS\nSURVEY

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 Flat 3123 : Rs2,75,90,100 (Being higher of two flat values) Exemption Under Section 54F : Rs 2,62,26,573/- Exemption Under Section 54EC : Rs 50,00,000/- ............................. 20 Taxable Gain : Rs 7,74,10,936/- 5.4 Preliminary Objection of the assessee against the proceedings under section 263 of the Act 5.4.1 The assessee raised preliminary objection against

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

property as on the date of transfer, (b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any other authority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital asset

MOHD SHAFI MOHD YUSUF PATEL,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - PANVEL,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri C.M. Gargआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.70/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15

160/- from the letting out of his ancestral property to M/s Balaji Warehousing and 2 Mohs. Shafi Mohd Yusuf Patel Pest Control Services Pvt. Ltd. After claiming standard deduction at 30% u/s.24 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act.), the assessee declared income under the head `Income from house property’ at Rs.35,84,112/- There

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

1(5), [2008] 173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

1(5), [2008] 173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 562/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 Pan : Aaach4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

house property which was already considered under the head Income from Business and vice versa. As a sequel, the claim u/s 4 A.Y.2014-15 80IA(4) of Rs.7,64,02,294/- was corrected to Rs.4,44,39,344/- in the revised computation. 4. The AO, after considering the revised computation which reflected Gross Total Income at Rs.4

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

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. PAN : AALPC4991M Appellant Respondent 2 IT(SS)A Nos.91 to 96/PUN/2022 IT(SS)A Nos.97 & 98/PUN/2022 Assessee by : Shri Ratan Samal, Mrs. Ruchi M. Rathod & Shri H. G. Sharma Revenue by : Shri Keyur Patel Date of hearing : 06.06.2023 Date of pronouncement : 28.06.2023 आदेश / ORDER PER BENCH : These are the cross appeals filed

RAGHULEELA BUILDERS PVT LTD,MUMBAI vs. DICT, CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1885/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Raghuleela Builders Pvt. Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Ltd., 1401, A-Wing, One Bkc, Plot C-66, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- 400051. Pan : Aadcr5942E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 28.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Arises Against The Cit(A)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 22.07.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit Circle-1(2), Pune/623/2014-15/227, Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Case Called Twice. None Appears At Assessee’S Behest. The Very Factual Position Had Existed On 30.05.2022 & 21.07.2022 As Well. We Thus Proceed Ex-Parte Against The Assessee.

Properties Pvt 1 1103 99,473,835 Ltd AAACI2711H 2,369,578 1% 2,366,959 80, Girgaum Road, 1012 115,119,025 Opera Mouse, Mumbai- 400004 2 Samudra Lodha ABAPL8827B 816 936,846 84,936,288 1% 80 Girgaum Road, Opera 936,846 House, Mumbai-400004 3 AVK Auto Mart Pvt Ltd Laxmi Plaza,138, Link Road, Laxmi Indl

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

properties made between 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 as follows : 6. “We keep it in mind the foregoing well defined parameters of the CIT/PCIT’s revision jurisdiction and revert to the fact of the instant 18 ITA.Nos.926 & 927/PUN./2019 Shri Nandlal Dulichand Gupta, Pune. case. Learned CIT-DR vehemently argued that the legislature has amended the clinching statutory expression “a residential

HANUMANT CHANGDEO NAKHATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashaliassessment Year 2015-16 The Dcit, Circle-8, Shri Hanumant Changdeo Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Nakhat, Bapu Niwas, Ram Vs Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagar, Rahatani, Nr. Akurdi Rly Station, Pune – 411 017. Pradhikaran, Pune Pan Acypn6082D Pin 411 044. Appellant Respondent

properties made between 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 as follows : 5. “Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the learned PCIT’s impugned revision directions. The first and foremost issue that arises for our apt adjudication is regarding the allowability of assessee’s section 54F deduction claim regarding reinvestment of his long term capital gains

MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

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

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

houses under private management or by the other ways best adapted to the wants of people according to Government rules and regulations so far as these affect a recognized or aided school. For AY 2020-21, the assessee trust filed its return of income on 28.03.2021 declaring total income at Rs. Nil and claiming exemption

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 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 (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The Assessee for A.Y.2017- 18 has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT is not justified in raising penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,57,400/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish ITA No.361 & 362/PUN/2023 Satish Pandurang Pawar [A] inaccurate particulars

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 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 (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 respectively. The Assessee for A.Y.2017- 18 has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT is not justified in raising penalty u/s 270A of Rs.1,57,400/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish ITA No.361 & 362/PUN/2023 Satish Pandurang Pawar [A] inaccurate particulars

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

160/-. Case processed u/s.143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, based on the information that the assessee along with 5 other persons have entered into an Agreement to purchase an immovable property for a consideration of Rs.72.00 lakh which\n2\nITA No.1016/PUN/2024\nRajendra Rasiklal Shah\nwas registered under Amnesty Scheme on 06.02.2016, the value of the property

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

160 and PN/ CIT(A)- 4/DCIT,Circle-6, Pune/278/2013-14/157; respectively, involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 2040 & 2041/PUN/2017 Sharada Erectors P.Ltd, 2. The Revenue’s former identical substantive ground pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. SHARADA ERECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED., PUNE`

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2040 & 2041/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 & 2011-12

160 and PN/ CIT(A)- 4/DCIT,Circle-6, Pune/278/2013-14/157; respectively, involving proceeding u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short "the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2 2040 & 2041/PUN/2017 Sharada Erectors P.Ltd, 2. The Revenue’s former identical substantive ground pleads that the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

1. The Assessee Society being a cooperative society is engaged purely in providing credit facilities to its members. Assessee Society would like to place reliance upon decision in case of CIT v/s Nawanshahar Central Cooperative Bank Limited (2007) 160 Taxmann 48 (SC), whereinthe Apex Court held that the investments made by banking concerns are part of the business of banking