M/S. PARMAR PROPERTIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

Appeal are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 2261 & 2262/Pun/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2013-14

260/-. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 30.06.2017 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-3/Cir-4,Pn/106/2016-17) has granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:- 1. The learned CIT(A)-3 erred

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

260 CTR 225 (Delhi) "29. The non obstante clause indicates that the provisions of 115JA of the Act would override the other provisions of the Act for computation of taxable income in certain cases falling within the sweep of section 115JA. Section 115JA of the Act is a special provision to calculate taxable income in certain cases. The levy

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

260 CTR 225 (Delhi) "29. The non obstante clause indicates that the provisions of 115JA of the Act would override the other provisions of the Act for computation of taxable income in certain cases falling within the sweep of section 115JA. Section 115JA of the Act is a special provision to calculate taxable income in certain cases. The levy

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

house property. The Appellant has adopted the municipal valuation as the NAV, however, the learned AO stated that according to the law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, the Appellant’s case falls under section 23(1)(a) according to which, ALV should be the sum for which, the property might reasonable be expected to let from year

SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

house property. The Appellant has adopted the municipal valuation as the NAV, however, the learned AO stated that according to the law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, the Appellant’s case falls under section 23(1)(a) according to which, ALV should be the sum for which, the property might reasonable be expected to let from year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

house property. The Appellant has adopted the municipal valuation as the NAV, however, the learned AO stated that according to the law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, the Appellant’s case falls under section 23(1)(a) according to which, ALV should be the sum for which, the property might reasonable be expected to let from year

MRS. SUREKHA HANUMANTRAO PAWAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.225/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Surekha Hanumantrao V The Income Tax Officer, Pawar, S. Ward-14(1), Pune. Sr.No.47, Sunita Nagar, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune - 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Bhepp5383D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Digambar Surwase – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 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)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For The A.Y.2012-13 Dated 02.07.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the A.Y.2012-13 dated 02.07.2024. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.225/PUN/2025 [A] “1. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (NFAC) erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant for non- prosecution. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief

M/S. GARUDA PLANT PRODUCT LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

house property being rental income. The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee has derived income from business and profession as the assessee is primarily engaged in the profession of providing technical consultancy and manufacturing of plastic fittings in the name and style of M/s. Garuda Plant Products Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had made

M/S. GARUDA PLANT PRODUCT LTD.,,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1539/Pun/2016 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Garuda Plant Product Ltd. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik-422 010. Pan : Aaacg0563H .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1, Nashik. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

house property being rental income. The A.Y.2012-13 & 2013-14 assessee has derived income from business and profession as the assessee is primarily engaged in the profession of providing technical consultancy and manufacturing of plastic fittings in the name and style of M/s. Garuda Plant Products Ltd. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had made

KISHOR NAMDEVRAO KACHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 5(2),, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.63/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

section 56(1)(vii)(b)(i) addition of Rs.1.20 crores in the course of assessment herein dated 27.02.2014; as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order. We deem it appropriate to extract the CIT(A)’s detail discussion in issue as follows :- “6.3 DECISION: I have perused the assessment order and the submission made by the appellant as above carefully

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

house property. 3. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer reopened the case as per the provisions of section 147 by issuing notice u/s 148A(d) of the Act on 25.07.2022 by recording as under: "GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7, PUNE To KOLTE-PATIL LIMITED INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS SURVEY

NITTEN SHRIKANT CHOUGULE,,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dt.26.03.2013 and the total income was determined at Rs.1,67,45,510/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.23.02.2015 (in appeal No.KOP/182/2013-14) granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench regarding identification of the said additional evidences which was admitted at the back of the AO or in contravention to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Ld.DR for the Revenue fairly submitted Shri Mahesh B. Chaudhary that the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench regarding identification of the said additional evidences which was admitted at the back of the AO or in contravention to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Ld.DR for the Revenue fairly submitted Shri Mahesh B. Chaudhary that the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench regarding identification of the said additional evidences which was admitted at the back of the AO or in contravention to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Ld.DR for the Revenue fairly submitted Shri Mahesh B. Chaudhary that the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench regarding identification of the said additional evidences which was admitted at the back of the AO or in contravention to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Ld.DR for the Revenue fairly submitted Shri Mahesh B. Chaudhary that the fact

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

260 5. During the proceedings before us and at the outset, in response to the query from the Bench regarding identification of the said additional evidences which was admitted at the back of the AO or in contravention to Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962, Ld.DR for the Revenue fairly submitted Shri Mahesh B. Chaudhary that the fact

TATYASAHEB NARAYAN LAGAD,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 6(2), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Tatyasaheb Narayan Lagad Ito, Ward 6(2), Pune B-504, Crossover Country, Sinhagad Vs. Road, Wadgaon Khurd, Pune – 411041 Pan: Acypl2714L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Department By : Shri Vishwas Mundhe Date Of Hearing : 20-02-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-04-2025 O R D E R

260/- Revised - 18,39,236/- 2016-17 29/03/2017 11,14,780/- Original 0/- 22,80,776/- 2017-18 09/03/2018 8,07,740/- Original - 6,38,495/- 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that initially the assessee filed ITR for assessment year 2015-16 declaring income of Rs.3,20,970/- which was revised on 29.03.2017 i.e. after demonetization period. Further