VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

Housing Loan for Flat No.7 Shivanjali Near Mahadev Temple, Indra Nagae, Chinchwad, Pune-411033 against which the Assessee has claimed deduction u/s.24(b) claiming this impugned flat as self-occupied property. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs.55,292/- is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No.2 : 11. This Ground relates

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

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

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 to the CIT(A), the disallowance of Rs.2,19,43,763/- is less than the allocable expenditure of Rs.2,54,41,706/-, if overhead allocation for property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also

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

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

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 to the CIT(A), the disallowance of Rs.2,19,43,763/- is less than the allocable expenditure of Rs.2,54,41,706/-, if overhead allocation for property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also

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

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

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 to the CIT(A), the disallowance of Rs.2,19,43,763/- is less than the allocable expenditure of Rs.2,54,41,706/-, if overhead allocation for property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also

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

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

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 to the CIT(A), the disallowance of Rs.2,19,43,763/- is less than the allocable expenditure of Rs.2,54,41,706/-, if overhead allocation for property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also

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

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 to the CIT(A), the disallowance of Rs.2,19,43,763/- is less than the allocable expenditure of Rs.2,54,41,706/-, if overhead allocation for property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also

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

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 to the CIT(A), the disallowance of Rs.2,19,43,763/- is less than the allocable expenditure of Rs.2,54,41,706/-, if overhead allocation for property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. 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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

JOHN DEERE EQIPMENT P. 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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

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

195(1) of the Act on amounts paid to foreign software supplier. 18. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee further pointed out that different Benches of Tribunal have also taken a view that right to use software does not amount to ‘royalty’. He then referred to the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi

VINEET PRAKASH POL,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vineet Prakash Pol, V The Acit, F-16, Midc, Ambad, S. Circle-1, Nashik. Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Abkpp4357J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated31.01.2024For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,81,195 Out Of The Total Disallowance Of Rs.30,74,834 Made By The A.O In Respect Of Interest Paid To Partnership Firms On Loans Obtained From Them Without Appreciating That The Said Disallowance Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That While

section 250 of the Act, dated31.01.2024for the A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.13,81,195 out of the total disallowance of Rs.30,74,834 made by the A.O in respect of interest paid to partnership firms on loans obtained from them without appreciating that

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

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer