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

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 and 234C

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

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

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

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

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,\ndocuments

DHANOTTAM VASANT LONKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3), , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

house, is rejected because Transaction leading to Capital\nGain itself is rejected and is treated as business income.\"\nAppellant prays for declaring claim of Long Term Capital Gain & u/s\n54F is valid and allowed, And declare that order is Bad in Law, being\nwithout application of mind and violative of powers of CIT(A).\n5) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals