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 in respect of Talegaon flat of Rs.31,920/- and Rs.42,000/- from Lunkad Collonade Viman Nagar property is concerned, it is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that due to some arithmetical error, there was shortfall in disclosing that rental income but rental income from the above two properties was disclosed. We find some force

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

245 ITR 727/108 Tasman 227 (Delhi) 7. CIT v. Dr. Laxmichand Narpal Nagda, [1995] 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

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

245\nAsian Steel\n54,53,932\nVitarag Trading Company\n48,44,403\nHiten Enterprises\n43,05,542\nBhagwati Trading Co.\n42,04,075\nSiddhi Vinayak Steel\n31,38,487\nEvershine Enterprise\n19,10,969\nRidhi Sales Corporation\n5,13,339\nShree Traders\n48,15,757\nGanesh Metals\n1,38,03,045\nManusha Enterprises\n88,00,722\nQST

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 132(4A) are not applicable to the assessee. The\nRevenue has not taken the statements of any of the buyers to prove that they have\nin fact given any on-money over and above what is mentioned in the registered\nsale deed.\n19.\nReferring to page 66 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\ndrew

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LL,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

section 132(4A) are not applicable to the assessee. The\nRevenue has not taken the statements of any of the buyers to prove that they have\nin fact given any on-money over and above what is mentioned in the registered\nsale deed.\n19. Referring to page 66 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee\ndrew

SHREE BALAJI REALTY,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeals for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 are allowed and the appeal for assessment year 2019-20 is partly allowed

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

section 132. 23. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi-Trib) and Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. H. Omkarappa (HUF) vide ITA No.1634/Bang/2019, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said cases

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

property has been executed and\nsecond is calculation of cash component as on-money. Similarly noting could be\nseen from the other documents seized during the search.\n5.3 Further, it is evident from the statement of Shirish Bhanudas Ranpise (Sales\nManager in Shree Balaji reality) that he has not only admitted the receipt of on\nmoney by the Assessee Firm

MEENAMANI GANGA BUILDER LLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

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

section 132. 23. Referring to the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs. DCIT (2021) 132 taxmann.com 41 (Delhi-Trib) and Bangalore Bench of the Tribunal in the case of DCIT vs. H. Omkarappa (HUF) vide ITA No.1634/Bang/2019, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Tribunal in the said cases

SHREE BALAJI REALTY ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, appeals for

property has been executed and\nsecond is calculation of cash component as on-money. Similarly noting could be\nseen from the other documents seized during the search.\n5.3 Further, it is evident from the statement of Shirish Bhanudas Ranpise (Sales\nManager in Shree Balaji reality) that he has not only admitted the receipt of on\nmoney by the Assessee Firm

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD., JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

245 2,15,36,605 Ramswaroop Agarwal 4 M/s. Divya Enterprises Prop. 9,79,32,384 1,76,27,829 11,55,60,213 Sagar Suraj Agrawal 5 M/s. Khushi Traders Prop. 2,52,47,771 45,44,599 2,97,92,370 Babusha Kasbe 6 Raja Cement House

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME, AURANGABAD vs. METAROLLS ISPAT PVT. LTD, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are partly allowed

245\n2,15,36,605\n4\nM/s. Divya Enterprises Prop.\nSagar Suraj Agrawal\n9,79,32,384\n1,76,27,829\n11,55,60,213\n5\nM/s. Khushi Traders Prop.\nBabusha Kasbe\n2,52,47,771\n45,44,599\n2,97,92,370\n6\nRaja Cement House\n1,99,46,143\n35,90,308\n2,35,36,451\nTotal

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

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

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KUMAR HOUSING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

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

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer

GANRAJ HOMES LLP,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer

GANRAJ HOMES LLP ,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

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

Properties vs. ACIT vide ITA No.741/PN/2012 iii) Fort Projects (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 29 taxmann.com 84 (Kolkata-Trib.) iv) ACIT vs. M/s. Layer Exports Pvt. Ltd. vide ITA No.2986/Mum/2011 v) DCIT vs. Royal Marwar Tobacco Product (P.) Ltd. (2009) 29 SOT 53 (Ahmedabad) (URO) vi) D.N. Kamani (HUF) vs. DCIT (1999) 70 ITD 77 (PAT.) (TM) vii) Samrat Beer