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.

211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would be hit by the prohibition contained in section

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT 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.

211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would be hit by the prohibition contained in section

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.

211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would be hit by the prohibition contained in section

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.

211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would be hit by the prohibition contained in section

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.

211 (Ker.), where the assessee trust purchased' a refrigerator even before the trust buildings were completed and kept it at the disposal of the managing trustee and it was found that the assessee never Charged adequate rent or other compensation from the trustee, the Hon. High.Court held that the case would be hit by the prohibition contained in section

RAMDAS SITARAM PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Ramdas Sitaram Patil, Vs. Acit, 238/2, Atharva Estate, Central Circle, E-Ward, Tarabai Park – 416 003 Kolhapur Kolhapur, Maharashtra Pan : Agupp5765D Appellant Respondent

house and secondly, the new residential property was purchased before one year prior to the sale of original 5 asset. Admittedly, the sale consideration was paid prior to the one year before the sale of original asset. There is no bar under law to claim deduction simultaneously u/s,.54 and u/s.54F in respect of the same asset. The crucial fact

SAKHARAM BHONDVE,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD -9 (1),, PUNE

property for the same agreed consideration as per Development Agreement & registered the same dated 21.04.2008. The assessee had 50% share and accordingly, he received 50% of the sale consideration being Rs.48 lacs. This was adopted as the gross sale consideration by the Assessing Officer as well as the assessee. It is an undisputed fact that the transfer of land took

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

211 (Mum). In the said case, the bad-debts write-off was claimed by using the phraseology as "provision for doubtful debts" and 'saucing the same from debtors accounts. Relevant head-note of the said decision is reproduced as under. II Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Bad debts - Assessment year 2004-05 - Whether even when

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

section 153C to the present proceedings is not upheld, then the matter may kindly be restored to the file of the Hon. CIT(A) to adjudicate ground no. 1 & 2 of the grounds raised before Hon. CIT(A) challenging re-opening u/s 147. Alternatively, the respondent may kindly be permitted to argue the ground relying upon Rule

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

211 in all, the persons who undertook this undertaking are entitled to the benefit of Section 80IB(10) of the Act in proportion to the share to which they are entitled to in the built up area. 9. In that view of the matter, the contention of the revenue that the assessee did not undertake any developmental or building activity

SANDHYA SURESH DAHIVELKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sandhya Suresh Dahivelkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(3), Pune. Flat No.6/624, Clover Citadel Wanowrie, Pune- 411040. Pan : Asypd2124N Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Dattatraya Suresh Kusumkar : Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.02.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 297 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Application/ Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. We Are Of The Considered Opinion That The Reasons Mentioned By The Assessee Constitute Reasonable Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within

section 142A of Income Tax Act.” 4. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and senior citizen widow lady, filed her Return of Income on 27-06-2017 declaring total income at Rs.15,24,570. In this Return of Income, appellant has shown capital gain on account of sale of Residential House situated at Nigdi, Pune

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 54F of the Act for the following reasons: A. Referring to the legal expenditure of Rs.2,68,500/-, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said amount was paid for (i) title search (ii) property consultancy (iii) legal consultancy. All these were incurred in connection with the investment of capital gains in the residential bungalow located at Sindh

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

211 ITR 804/78 Taxman 219 (Bom.) 8. CIT v. Shahajada Begum [1988] 173 ITR 397/38 Taxman 311 (AP) 9. S. Dabir Singh, Jalandhar v. DIT [IT Appeal No. 27 (Asr.) of 2015] 8 6. On the other hand, Ld. DR had relied upon the findings of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and have also gone

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, AURANGBAD, AURANGBAD vs. SANJAY SUGANCHAND KASLIWAL, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed\nand the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed as\nper terms indicated above

houses / bungalows\nbeing construed by M/sKasliwal Empire. As a natural corollary,\nthe receiver of the amount, for the purpose of section 69 D of the\nAct has to be that firm and not the Assessee in his\nindividual/personal capacity. The firm, being an artificial\njurisdictional entity, has to conduct its activities through its\npartners.\"\n24. Further at the time

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. MS S S LANDMARKS, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.977 & 972/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/S. S. S. Landmarks, Pune Unit U, Shakti Chamber, S.No.77-1/1A/1/3, Sangamwadi, Pune 411 003 Maharashtra Pan : Aadas1463K Appellant Respondent

section 801B(10) (a)(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 3. Whether on the basis of facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) did not err in concluding that the facts of the assessee's case are identical with those in the case of Hindustan Samuh Awas Ltd. Vs CIT, [284 CTR 43 (Bombay

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, PUNE vs. M/S. VISHRAM DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1794/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 The Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 3, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. M/S. Vishram Developers, 61B/11, Zelum Apartment, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune – 411004 Pan: Aagfv0995F ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee By : S/Shri Ajay Singh / Deepak Sasar Revenue By : Shri Deepak Garg

housing project. DCIT v Kamdhenu Builders and Developers / I.T.A no 7010/Mum/2010, dated-27/01/2016 (ITAT)(Mum) D. The assessee filed audit report in Form 56F when revised computation of total income was furnished before Assessing Officer, deduction under section 10AA could not be denied merely for non-filing of audit report along with return of income itself. The assessee became

KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD (SUCCESSOR KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PVT LTD),PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 14, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

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

property does not arise. Even if it were received, in excess of the revenue already recognized in the yester years, the same should be automatically converted into revenue for the year and added to the taxable income for the A.Y. 2013-14 since as per your own statement, the project "CEREBRUM B3" is 100% complete. Therefore, it may have