DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

house property, which is not let out, but it is equally trite that a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond its ambit, so as to cover the heads of income or the sections, to which it does not operate. My attention has not been drawn by the Id. DR towards any specific provision under Chapter

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

house property, which is not let out, but it is equally trite that a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond its ambit, so as to cover the heads of income or the sections, to which it does not operate. My attention has not been drawn by the Id. DR towards any specific provision under Chapter

PRANJAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -4, , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business and not as 'Income from house property'. Our attention has been drawn towards certain Tribunal decisions including Cosmopolis Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 230 & 231 (PUN) of 2018, dated 12-9-2018], wherein

SOLUTIONEYES CONSULTANCY SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD -6(5),, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business and not as 'Income from house property'. Our attention has been drawn towards certain Tribunal decisions including Cosmopolis Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 230 & 231 (PUN) of 2018, dated 12-9-2018], wherein

PRANJAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business and not as 'Income from house property'. Our attention has been drawn towards certain Tribunal decisions including Cosmopolis Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 230 & 231 (PUN) of 2018, dated 12-9-2018], wherein

KHINVASARA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Khinvasara Chavan Acit, Circle – 5, Pune Shop No.1 & 2, Vijay Apartments, Vs. 22, Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aacfk3473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan R Potdar Department By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

section 22 of the Act are to be excluded, therefore, we hold that no addition on account of deemed rent on unsold 37 flats can be made in the hands of the assessee. The ld. DR did not dispute that the assessee recognized the unsold flats as stock-in-trade but however relied on the order of CIT(A). Thus

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]

164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business and not as 'Income from house property'. Our attention has been drawn towards certain Tribunal decisions including Cosmopolis Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 230 & 231 (PUN) of 2018, dated 12-9-2018], wherein

HOMELAND CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.17/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Homeland Construction Pvt. Ltd., 5, 100/4, The Retreat Salisbury Park, Near Poonawala Bunglow, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aabch8510Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 11, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

164 Taxman 342/[2008] 296 ITR 661 has held that income from the properties held as stock in trade can be treated as Income from business and not as 'Income from house property'. Our attention has been drawn towards certain Tribunal decisions including Cosmopolis Construction v. ITO [IT Appeal No. 230 & 231 (PUN) of 2018, dated 12-9-2018], wherein

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

ARIHANT VASTUNIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,RATNAGIRI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arihant Vastunirman Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Limited, Office No.1, Siddhivinayak Community Hall, Shivaji Nagar, Siddhivinayak Nagar, Ratnagiri- 415612. Pan : Aakca4408K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. Of Rs.34,14,922/- Representing Notional Rental Income In Respect Of Unsold Flats Forming Part Of Closing Inventory Of The Appellant.

property held as stock in trade was used for the purposes of business, therefore, section 23(4) does not apply. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that when the Hon’ble High Court decided the case of CIT vs. Ansal Housing Finance Ltd, section 23(5) was not on statute book. Ld. Counsel of the 5 assessee relied

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make your submissions along with documentary evidences in support of your contention." 5. Assessee duly responded to the show cause notices and furnished the information about the purchase of residential properties

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 PAN: AAICA8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

SURESH CHUNNILAL SHARMA,,PARBHANI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - PARBHANI,, PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1883/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14

house property and dividend. A return was filed declaring total income of Rs.9,17,560/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee purchased Plot nos. 164 and 165 admeasuring 370.20 sq. mtrs for a consideration of Rs.9,52,000/-. Out of this, an area of 183.17 sq. mtrs. was sold for a consideration of Rs.6

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

house property and addition of Rs.5,05,860/- on account of low household withdrawals, to the income returned by the assessee. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who vide his order dated 20.12.2023 confirmed the above additions made by the Ld. AO. 6. In the meanwhile, the assessee’s case was selected for Revenue

SHRI MUKUND BHAVAN TRUST,PUNE vs. CIT(E), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrashri Mukund Bhavan Trust Cit (Exemption), Pune 1105, Raviwar Peth, Mukund Vs. Bhavan, Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaats5170R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri V.L. Jain Department By : Shri Mallikarjun Utture, Cit Date Of Hearing : 05-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-04-2025 O R D E R

house hold activities), and Sannyasashram (renouncing material world), which is a materialistic arrangement for one social group to dominate another, and by reinforcing identity based on bodily categories. Thus, the entire concept itself is against the social development and not for any charity of the people at large at all. 2 Further verification shows that the Trust Deed contains

MARWADI NAVYUVAK VACHANALAYA ,LATUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandamarwadi Navyuvak Vachanalaya Cit(Exemption), Pune Marwadi Navyuvak Vachanal, Vs. Main Road, Latur – 413512 Pan: Aabtm2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

house in which all these functions could be carried on. When the space available in the building was found to be surplus, it naturally made it available for rent by letting out part of it. By doing so, it was not carrying on any activity for profit as conceived by the provision. A person who lets out a property

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

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7