MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

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

house property has to be the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto and not merely the holder of an interest therein. If that is the explicit meaning given to the word "property" in section 22, any other meaning to the same word appearing in section 24(b) cannot be ascribed. What is referred to in this section

MANOJ JAIKUMAR TIBREWALA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

Accordingly. We make it clear that the assessee shall be at liberty to file all the relevant details in consequential proceedings. This last appeal ITA No. 609/Pun/2019 is allowed for statistical p...

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ss)A Nos. 06 & 07/Pun/2017 (Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14) Shri Manoj Jaikumar Tibrewala Acit, Central Circle-1 Vastu Shilp, Ground Floor Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan Godavari Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 Pan – Aakpt7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent By: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022

Housing Society Vs. Gadkari Chowk Boys Town School Road Old Agra Road, Nashik Nashik 422005 PAN – AAKPT7009G Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Pamod S. Shingte Respondent by: Shri S.P. Walimbe Date of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 10.05.2022 O R D E R Per S.S. Godara, JM These assessee’s three 3 appeals for AY 2012-13 – 2014-15 arise

MANGALAM TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(1),, PUNE

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.173/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Managalam Technology Pvt. Ltd., The Income Tax Officer, A-102, Palladium 46-C, Nathan Vs Ward-14(1), Pune. Road, Off Mangaldas Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aaecm 8717 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-7, Pune Dated 20.11.2018 Emanating Out Of Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Also Called As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Order Passed Us 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 2) The Hon.Cit(A) Erred

section 22 to 28 of Income Tax Act 1961, and cannot be taxed as income under the head “INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY” as per the provisions of Income Tax Act 1961. d) In taxing the reimbursement of society maintenance charges as Income from House Property even after accepting the facts that the amount is reimbursement of society maintenance

M/S. VARUN DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2) & 142(1) of IT Act was issued and served on the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the IT Act and as the similar claim was rejected in the 3 earlier years in assessee’s own case, therefore, after considering the reply of the assessee

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/- Taxable Gain : Rs 7,74,10,936/- The assessee has shown a capital gain of Rs 2,41,12,249/- in the return of income filed on 31/08/2015. Hence

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.75/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Michelle Yohan Poonawalla, The Dy.Cit, Circle-7, Pune. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, 2Nd Vs Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, . Opp.Niv, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aanpv 5236 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Patel – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walime & Shir Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune Dated 31.12.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That - A. In Order To Arrive At Actual Rent As Defined U/Sec.23(1)(D) In Case Of Let Out Property, Expenditure Incurred For Earning Such Rent Shall Be Deducted At Threshold Level Itself. B. Principles Of Real Income Are Ignored While Denying Deduction Of Interest Paid By Appellant For Acquiring Possession Of Property (I.E. Flat No.11, Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai) From Statutory Tenant. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Payment Of

house property” shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:— (a) a sum equal to thirty per cent of the annual value; (b) where the property has been acquired, constructed, repaired, renewed or reconstructed with borrowed capital, the amount of any interest payable on such capital: Provided that in respect of property referred to in sub-section (2

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 to business income, is enhancement in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is also a fact that no opportunity wasgiven to the assessee before such enhancement. This failure to issue show cause goes to the root of the issue of powers of CIT(A) of enhancement. Therefore, for the reasons discussed ,respectfully following the ITAT

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 to business income, is enhancement in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is also a fact that no opportunity wasgiven to the assessee before such enhancement. This failure to issue show cause goes to the root of the issue of powers of CIT(A) of enhancement. Therefore, for the reasons discussed ,respectfully following the ITAT

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

24. Referring to the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, he submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the ground that ignorance of law cannot be taken as a plea in any penal proceedings. He submitted that since the house property was vacant during the year and only the income was declared before the Settlement Commission for which

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, 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

24. Referring to the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, he submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the ground that ignorance of law cannot be taken as a plea in any penal proceedings. He submitted that since the house property was vacant during the year and only the income was declared before the Settlement Commission for which

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

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 234, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

24 (in respect of the property referred to in sub-section (2) of section 23) or clause (iia) of sub- section (1) of section 32 or section 32AD or section 33AB or section 33ABA or sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iia) or sub- clause (iii) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2AA) of section 35 or section 35AD

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

House Property. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs.6,86,813/- to the rent income of Rs.10,18,051/- offered by the Appellant and treating the same as taxable income of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that certain amount of rent was unrealized and therefore

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 17. On going through the above sections 68 and 115BBC of the Act, we note that section 68 of the Act is invoked

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 17. On going through the above sections 68 and 115BBC of the Act, we note that section 68 of the Act is invoked

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

24) of section 2, where a person receiving such contribution does not maintain a record of the identity indicating the name and address of the person making such contribution and such other particulars as may be prescribed.” 17. On going through the above sections 68 and 115BBC of the Act, we note that section 68 of the Act is invoked

VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “House Property, Income from S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 Partnership firms, Capital Gains and Income from Other sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.78,24,250/-. Against the said return of income

M/S. GREAT FORTUNE INVESTMENTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2325/Pun/2017 निर्ाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Great Fortune Investments & The Assistant Commissioner Of Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax, Shop No.6, Rushiraj Heights, Near Cirlce-1, Nashik. Nmc Water Tank, Parijat Nagar, Mahatma Nagar, Nahik. Pan: Aaccg 6406 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket M Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 10/02/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/04/2022

house property u/s 23(1 )(a), it is submitted as under – 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the fair market rent of the show room at Rushiraj Regency, Nashik was rightly considered by the A.O. at Rs. 18,00,000/- per annum on the basis of alleged market enquiry and thereby making the addition