SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 11. But no addition can be made to the total income of the trust on this ground. The decision of ITAT Chennai in 54 ITD 201 is cited by the appellant in support of the contention. I have given careful consideration to the facts before me and perused the decision of ITAT Chennai cited in Para-6.9 above

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 11. But no addition can be made to the total income of the trust on this ground. The decision of ITAT Chennai in 54 ITD 201 is cited by the appellant in support of the contention. I have given careful consideration to the facts before me and perused the decision of ITAT Chennai cited in Para-6.9 above

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 11. But no addition can be made to the total income of the trust on this ground. The decision of ITAT Chennai in 54 ITD 201 is cited by the appellant in support of the contention. I have given careful consideration to the facts before me and perused the decision of ITAT Chennai cited in Para-6.9 above

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

Section 11. But no addition can be made to the total income of the trust on this ground. The decision of ITAT Chennai in 54 ITD 201 is cited by the appellant in support of the contention. I have given careful consideration to the facts before me and perused the decision of ITAT Chennai cited in Para-6.9 above

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14 (5),, PUNE

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

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

193/- (Rs.2,19,43,763/- - Rs.1,18,53,570/-) being 0.5% of average value of investments. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee has shown corporate overhead allocation of Rs.1,13,01,195/- for property income which requires to be disallowed and the computation does not reflect the correct allocation of the expenses were exempt income. According

MRS. SNEHAL SAMEER BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Snehal Sameer Bhujbal, V The Income Tax Officer, Sanswadi, Nagar Road, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Pune – 412208. Maharashtra. Pan: Blcpb5495C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 16.05.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held

193 (Bombay) 3. Bhavesh Maganlal Dhaord Vs. ITO [2023] 155 taxmann.com 335 (Bombay) 4. Santosh Vs. ITO in ITA No.2025/Del/2024 - Delhi ITAT Submission of ld.DR: 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of the Assessing Officer(AO) and ld.CIT(A). Ld.DR filed copies of the documents generated on the ITBA to demonstrate the flow of approval issued

JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5 , PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

193 (Bom) to contend that when the business is transferred, chargeability arises in terms of section 50B. It is no doubt true that both the Hon‘ble High Courts have held as has been argued. 11. The AO/ld. CIT(A) have fully/partly taken shelter of section 28(ii)(a)/(va) to canvass their respective points of view. It thus becomes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE vs. JAYANT AVINASH DAVE,, PUNE

In the result, the cross appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and the CO is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.23/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Circle 5, Pune Amar Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Dcit, Vs. Jayant Avinash Dave Circle 5, Pune 46/2/1B, Kaka Halwai Industrial Estate, Pune Satara Road, Pune – 411009 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Appellant Respondent Cross Objection No.11/Pun/2022 (Arising Out Of Ita No.182/Pun/2019 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Jayant Avinash Dave Vs. Dcit, Office No.801-804, 8Th Floor, Amar Circle 5, Pune Business Park, Sadanand Estates, Plot No.1, S.No.105, Baner Road, Pune – 411045 Pan: Aaqpd6875J Cross Objector Respondent & Co No.11/Pun/2022

193 (Bom) to contend that when the business is transferred, chargeability arises in terms of section 50B. It is no doubt true that both the Hon‘ble High Courts have held as has been argued. 11. The AO/ld. CIT(A) have fully/partly taken shelter of section 28(ii)(a)/(va) to canvass their respective points of view. It thus becomes

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DEVENDRA P. SHAH,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before

DEVENDRA P. SHAH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 675 To 679/Pun/2016 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12

house property Cash payment to 10,00,000 -- -- -- -- Shrushti Sangam Assessed Income 3,97,46,150 3,20,49,181 2,78,75,690 2,95,00,657 1,66,66,843 3 Devendra P. Shah A.Yrs. 2007-08 to 2011-12 2.1 Referring to the additions made by the AO, giving the fate of these additions before