KIRAN BABURAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, PMT BUILDING SWARGAT

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Kiran Baburao Jadhav Dcit, Swargate, Pune Flat No.4, Shubhamkar Apts, Lane Vs. No.14, Bhandarkar Road, Pune – 411004 Pan: Addpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gajanan N Kondhare Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-08-2025 O R D E R

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,14,23,740/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised his return of income on 31.01.2024 by declaring additional income of Rs.97,06,000/- and paid tax on the above amounting to Rs.33,66,040/-. The facts leading to the above

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

234B 4. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional ground/s and/or withdraw the ground/s during appeal proceedings. Appellant prays to allow the same.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee claimed exemption u/s 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) from long term capital gain on sale of shares

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'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

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'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

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

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:

234B. Appellant prays to delete the same. 5. Appellant prays for just and Equitable relief. 6. Appellant prays to add, alter, amend, take additional ground and/ or withdraw the Ground/s and submit additional evidences as the occasion may demand during appellate proceedings. 6. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the Assessing

KISAN RAGHUNATH NANAWARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 329/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Kisan Raghunath Nanaware, New Market Yard, At & Post Nira, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune. Pan : Aeupn7689E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

housing property, shares and Tempo Trax, the Ld. AR for the assessee has not submitted any proof of source of aforesaid investment. Hence, the addition made in the hands of assessee is upheld. Thus, ground No. 6 to 9 are dismissed. 22. Ground No. 10 is against charging of interest under section 234B

M/S WATERFRONT HOUSING & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Waterfront Housing & Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Pune. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajyog Creations Apts, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aaacw9020F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 48(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act From The Long Term Capital Gains, In Respect Of The Indexed Cost Of Interest Paid For The Acquisition Of The House Property Sold By The Assessee, Made By The Assessing Officer By Travelling Beyond The Issue For Which This Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Is Without Jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Eared Is Not Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.24,38,826/- U/S 48(Ii) From The Long Term

house property. (a) The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed the interest paid for acquisition of above said properties/flats and claimed as indexed cost of improvement and therefore the said disallowances made by Assessing Officer is not justified and same may please be allowed as indexed cost of improvement and grant the deduction. (b) The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 23(4) only one flat can be considered as self occupied and therefore, he has considered the annual value of the flat at Kondhwa, Pune at Rs.60,000/- and after reducing the standard deduction of Rs.18,000/-, he has computed the net income under the head 'house property' at Rs.42,000/-. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,LONAVALA vs. ITO CEN.II, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 23(4) only one flat can be considered as self occupied and therefore, he has considered the annual value of the flat at Kondhwa, Pune at Rs.60,000/- and after reducing the standard deduction of Rs.18,000/-, he has computed the net income under the head 'house property' at Rs.42,000/-. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 23(4) only one flat can be considered as self occupied and therefore, he has considered the annual value of the flat at Kondhwa, Pune at Rs.60,000/- and after reducing the standard deduction of Rs.18,000/-, he has computed the net income under the head 'house property' at Rs.42,000/-. The learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

section 54F of the ITA, 1961 is not fulfilled. The learned CIT(A)-1, ought to have appreciated that, the funds received on sale of land were blocked by SBI for recovery & repayment of loans of M/s. Prathmesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and were not released in-spite of several requests made by the appellant, so that residential house property

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from “income from other sources”. The assessee is not filed regular return of income as per the provisions

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

234B(1)\n\"(1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial\nyear, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has\nfailed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee\nunder the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the\nassessed

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

234B. 4. The issue raised in both the appeals is against adoption of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 while computing income from capital gains. 3 5. The assessee moved an application for adjournment, which was refused in view of the issue being settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

234B. 4. The issue raised in both the appeals is against adoption of Fair Market Value as on 01.04.1981 while computing income from capital gains. 3 5. The assessee moved an application for adjournment, which was refused in view of the issue being settled by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court. 6. Briefly, in the facts of the case

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

house before accounting year 2014-15 then no income could be deemed on account of lower payment of 4 purchase price. Similar decision was taken in case of ITAT Kolkata branch in case of Asha Vijay vs ITO in ITA No.401/KOL/2023, where it has been laid down that if transfer has taken place prior to accounting year 2014-15 then

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

234B, 234C of the Act, is erroneous, unwarranted\nand be deleted.\nThe Appellant prays that the additions made by the Ld. TPO/Ld.\nAO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP be deleted and\nconsequential relief be granted.\nThe Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw\nany of the above grounds of appeal and to submit such statements

UMESH DHONDIRAM SHINDE,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, KOLHAPUR

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

property. 3) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming interest under section 234A, 234B & 234C of the Act, 1961. 4) On facts and in circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on merit in confirming penalty under section

RATHOD JEWELLERS,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 68 doesn't arise. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact of incorrect levy of interest 234B of the Act on the entire assessed income while calculating demand. 5. The appellant may kindly be permitted to add to or alter any of grounds of appeal, if deemed necessary