Search: house property | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

155 results for “house property”+ Section 23clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,695 Delhi1,458 Bangalore509 Jaipur325 Hyderabad282 Chennai261 Ahmedabad205 Chandigarh204 Kolkata158 Pune155 Indore116 Cochin84 Rajkot72 Raipur70 SC64 Amritsar60 Surat59 Visakhapatnam49 Nagpur47 Lucknow38 Patna37 Agra31 Guwahati26 Cuttack25 Jodhpur12 Allahabad9 Varanasi9 Jabalpur3 A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3 Dehradun2 Ranchi1 H.L. DATTU S.A. BOBDE1 Panaji1 T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1 D.K. JAIN JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR1 ANIL R. DAVE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH1

Key Topics

Section 14878 Section 143(3)66 Section 143(2)61 Section 13249 Addition to Income49 Section 26344 Section 14738 Section 10(38)31 Section 153A29 Reopening of Assessment

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

ITA 92/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

section 23(1) of the Act which has remained to be considered by the A.O. while computing the income under the head 'Income from House Property

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

Showing 1–20 of 155 · Page 1 of 8

...

23

House Property17

ITA 91/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 23(1)(c)

section 23(1) of the Act which has remained to be considered by the A.O. while computing the income under the head 'Income from House Property

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

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

ITA 613/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Sept 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 22Section 23(1)(c)Section 24Section 80I

section 22 r.w.s. 23(4) of the IT Act, in the light of judgement of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Ansal Housing & Construction (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble High Court held that vacant flats/units held as stock in trade by a builder are liable to be taxed under the head “Income from house property

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

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

ITA 665/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

House Property as given in Section 23 and 24 are exhaustive with the result that, if a particular type of expenditure

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

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

ITA 664/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

House Property as given in Section 23 and 24 are exhaustive with the result that, if a particular type of expenditure

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

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

23. So far as the income from house property amounting to Rs.3,88,920/- is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in his original return has declared the income from house property of Rs.1,46,524/- (from Lunkad colonnade, Pune - Rs.1,21,324/- and for Talegaon flat Rs.25,200/-) and in the statements of facts

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

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

23. So far as the income from house property amounting to Rs.3,88,920/- is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee in his original return has declared the income from house property of Rs.1,46,524/- (from Lunkad colonnade, Pune - Rs.1,21,324/- and for Talegaon flat Rs.25,200/-) and in the statements of facts

ARIHANT VASTUNIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,RATNAGIRI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 448/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.448/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Arihant Vastunirman Private Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Kolhapur. Limited, Office No.1, Siddhivinayak Community Hall, Shivaji Nagar, Siddhivinayak Nagar, Ratnagiri- 415612. Pan : Aakca4408K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.10.2024 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition By The A.O. Of Rs.34,14,922/- Representing Notional Rental Income In Respect Of Unsold Flats Forming Part Of Closing Inventory Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 23(4)Section 23(5)

23(4) of the IT Act talks about the property (i.e. house) and do not use word commercial property (i.e. shops) or “stock in trade”. It was also submitted that the property held as stock in trade was used for the purposes of business, therefore, section

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

ITA 35/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri Nitin RanderFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 24

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

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 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(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

House Property and thus reduced the total income. In this case, it was only because of survey conducted by Department, the wrong claims were detected. The assessee had never voluntarily disclosed his wrong claims. 8. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs N G technologies Ltd [2015] 370 ITR 7 (Delhi

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 884/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is relevant for determining the income from house property and concerns determination of the annual

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

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1439/PUN/2024[AY2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

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

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

house property" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:— (a) ………………………; (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) of section 23

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 1438/PUN/2024[AY2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Dec 2025

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

Section 153ASection 250Section 43BSection 68Section 80C

house property" shall be computed after making the following deductions, namely:— (a) ………………………; (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) of section 23

M/S SUKHWANI PROMOTORS AND BUILDERS,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (CENTRAL),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 301/PUN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.301/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & The Principal Builders, Vs Commissioner Of Income 208/2A, Near Swaminathan Tax, (Central), Pune. Clinic, Station Road, Pimpri, Pune – 411018. Pan: Abrfs 1253 P Assessee/ Appellant Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Jitendra Jain – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax(Central), Pune Dated 24.03.2022 Under Section 263 Of The Act For A.Y.2017-18. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1 & 2. Pcit Erred In Passing The Order U/S 263 Of The Act Which Is Bad In Law, Illegal, Ultra-Virus, In Excess Of And/Or In Want Of Jurisdiction & Otherwise Void. M/S.Sukhwani Promoters & Builders [A]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 263Section 40

section 23 w.e.f. 1-4-2018 reading as under:— 'Where the property consisting of any building or land appurtenant thereto is held as stock-in-trade and the property or any part of the property is not let during the whole or any part of the previous year, the annual value of such property or part of the property

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT

Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

23,18,712/-. It shows that the agreement to sale was for row houses and the same has been transferred to the assessee against the consideration received through banking channel. Now in the alleged diary, certain amounts were mentioned for row house No.17 at Rs. 1,30,000/- & Rs. 5,11,000/- on the date 7.03 & 19.04 respectively. It clearly

KHINVASARA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

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

ITA 2402/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Khinvasara Chavan Acit, Circle – 5, Pune Shop No.1 & 2, Vijay Apartments, Vs. 22, Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aacfk3473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan R Potdar Department By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Rohan R PotdarFor Respondent: Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 234

House Property. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to calculate deemed rent vide its Para No. 5.4 to an extent of Rs.27,97,200/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the 5 same. According to ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and the addition made by the AO as confirmed

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES, PUNE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 481/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 481/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pride Purple Properties, Pride House, 5Th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Pan: Aaifp0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 23Section 23(4)Section 24Section 250

section 23 providing that where a property held as ‘stock in trade’ is not let out during the year, its annual value, ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4 Pride Purple Properties, ITA No. 481/PUN/2022 A.Y. : 2014-15 after a period of one year or as revised to two years, shall be considered for the purposes of inclusion under the head

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

ITA 683/PUN/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Oct 2024AY 2022-23

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.

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil

Section 10Section 10ASection 115BSection 143(1)Section 155BSection 16Section 23Section 24Section 32Section 32A

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 or section 35CCC or clause

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 364/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 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(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

property under section 24 of the Act. Assessee was well aware of the fact that assessee has not taken any housing loan and has not paid any housing loan interest to claim deduction. Thus, knowing well all the facts, assessee consciously filed Revised Return to claim the excess refund. Though assessee may have been advised by the Tax Practitioner

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 783/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Suhas BoraFor Respondent: Shri Uma Shanker Prasad

House Property. The AO did not accept the submissions of the assessee and proceeded to calculate deemed rent vide its Para No. 5.4 to an extent of Rs.27,97,200/-. The CIT(A) confirmed the same. According to ld. AR that the issue is covered in favour of the assessee and the addition made by the AO as confirmed