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

MANGILAL LAKAHJI CHOWDHARY,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr.Dipak P.Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2791/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14

171 (Mum.) [2011] in identical facts held as under: *Section 2(47) defines 'transfer' in relation of capital asset to mean sale, exchange or relinquishment of the assets etc. Clause (v) of sub-section (47) of section 2 provides that any transaction involving the allowing of the possession of any immovable property to be taken or retained in part performance

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

House Property’ without any evidence of repairs but once the Income is treated as business income the deductions is not automatic . Thus, there is definitely enhancement. Therefore, the CIT(A) was duty bound to follow procedure laid down in Section 251(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the Section 251 is reproduced here under

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

House Property’ without any evidence of repairs but once the Income is treated as business income the deductions is not automatic . Thus, there is definitely enhancement. Therefore, the CIT(A) was duty bound to follow procedure laid down in Section 251(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the Section 251 is reproduced here under

UJWAL FINE HOMES,PUNE vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.491/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Ujwal Fine Homes, V The Principal High Bliss, S No.23, Dhayri S Commissioner Of Income Narhe Road, Pune – 411041. Tax, Pune -3, Pune. Pan; Aabfu7293E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri C.H.Naniwadekar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 21/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 28/11/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Pune-3, Pune U/Sec.263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 09.02.2024 For The A.Y.2018- 19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. In Issuing The Notice U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For Ay 2018-19

housing project called Ujwal Paradise. Assessment Order for A.Y.2018-19 was passed on 17/04/2021, accepting the returned income of Rs.11,32,63,182/-. 5 4.1 The relevant paragraphs of the assessment order are reproduced here as under : “3. It e-filed its return of income on 10-10-2018 admitting a total income of Rs.11,32,63,182/- vide acknowledgement

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, you have accepted to own two flats.” 5.1 The Ld. AR brought our attention to the notice dated 11.03.2024 (copy at page 1 of the paper book) for penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act and submitted that the notice does not mention which limb of section 270A(9) is attracted. She submitted that the assessee made

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

MARUTI NIVRUTTI NAVALE, (SMALLER HUF),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

M N NAVALE BIGGER HUF,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Sl. No.

properties and the estimation of the related agricultural income. Since the said issues were set aside to the file of Assessing Officer, these issues remained open. After giving adequate opportunity, the Assessing Officer passed the order. The Assessing Officer’s finding in the second round are discussed in the following paragraphs. B. SECOND ROUND Before the Assessing Officer: That

CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property and gains from business or profession and capital gains is to be assessed under the head 'income from other sources'. However, for applicability of Section 14 and thereafter Section 56, what is required is the receipt in the nature of income. In Circular No.447, it has been clearly stated "In view of this, it is clarified that such

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

171 taxmann.com 846 (Bombay) wherein the Hon’ble Court has also taken into consideration the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Shyam Sunder Khandelwal Vs. ACIT 161 taxmann.com 255 (Rajasthan) and Hon’ble Court has discussed about non obstante clause appearing in provisions of section 153A and 153C of the Act along with scope

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

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

house property and business, capital gains or others. Therefore, consequential deductions u/s.70, 71 and 72 of the Act are not available and relied on the following decisions in this regard (1) Fakir Mohamed Haji Hasan Vs. CIT 247 ITR 290 (Guj.), (2) Liberty Plywoods (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT 29 taxmann.com 268 (ITAT Chd.), (3) ITO Vs. Dulari Digital Photo Services