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

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

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

property is being used for business purpose. Section 22 excludes from its charge income from any house property or any portion

MAHANAGAR CONSTRUCTIONS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2),, 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 No.623/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mahanagar Constructions, S.No.129, H.No.1/2, Hari Ganga, Near Rto Office, Yerwada, Pune-411006. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aajfm8909K बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-7(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Vipin Gujrathi Revenue By : Shri N. Ashok Babu सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 15.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-5, Pune Dated 12.12.2017 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 11,59,200/- To The Income Of The Appellant Under The Head “Income From House Property” Being The Annual Letting Value Of The Unsold Units Lying As Stock In Trade Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & The Unsold Flats Are Held As Stock In Trade & Not As Investments. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted. 2) Without Prejudice To Ground Of Appeal No. 1, On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit (Appeals) - 5, Pune

sections 22 to 23 of the Act relating to the head of income i.e. income from house property. Further, it is an undisputed

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

property in terms of section 22. The annual value determination shall be strictly in accordance with the provisions contained in section 23 as upheld by the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Delite Enterprises (P) Ltd. V. ITO (2008) 22 SOT 245 (Mum). Accordingly, where the Rent Control Act is applicable only the standard rent is to be taken

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.

22)(e) of the Act deserves to be deleted. 4.1 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in taxing the income from Renting of property under the head "Income From Other Sources “instead of "Income from House Property" as declared by the Appellant in ITA No.492/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 Shree

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

house property amounting to Rs.3,88,920, without appreciating that the said "income" was not part of any incriminating material & as such, the same could not have been assessed at the 153A stage by the learned AO. It is further contended, learned AO devised concealment penalty w.r.t. such income which didn't emanate from any search proceeding. 10. The learned

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 amounting to Rs.3,88,920, without appreciating that the said "income" was not part of any incriminating material & as such, the same could not have been assessed at the 153A stage by the learned AO. It is further contended, learned AO devised concealment penalty w.r.t. such income which didn't emanate from any search proceeding. 10. The learned

JOHN THOMAS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

house property”. The Tribunal has considered the provisions of section 54F by observing that the A.O had passed the impugned assessment order without taking into consideration the provisions of section 27 clause (i) of the Act which is a deeming provision only applicable for sections 22

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

House 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/- ............................. 20 Taxable Gain : Rs 7,74,10,936/- 5.4 Preliminary Objection of the assessee against the proceedings under section 263 of the Act 5.4.1 The assessee raised preliminary objection

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

house property in day- to-day business activity requirements. This admittedly is not the Revenue’s case that the assessee has been managing his business activities from any other place. We accordingly delete rent disallowance of Rs.1,20,000/- in these peculiar circumstances. 4. The assessee does not press for his third substantive ground of challenging section 41(1) - cession

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

section 32 of the Act. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Shri Neelesh Khandelwal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer. During

M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

section 32 of the Act. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 6. The appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, raise any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Shri Neelesh Khandelwal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a builder and developer. During

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

property as per section 22 to 28 of Income Tax Act 1961, and cannot be taxed as income under the head “INCOME FROM HOUSE

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

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

property and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.1

KOLTE PATIL I-VEN TOWNSHIPS PUNE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

house property u/s 22, it is submitted that the unsold units were vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. NIL in view of the provisions of section

M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

house property u/s 22, it is submitted that the unsold units were vacant for the entire year and accordingly, the income thereon was to be considered at Rs. NIL in view of the provisions of Section