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

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]

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

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

Housing Ltd. Vs. ITO (2014) 45 taxmann.com 144 (Kar), wherein it has been held that Chpter XIV-B does not preclude the Assessing Officer to proceed against the assessee by issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. He thus, stressed that after search proceedings carried out in the case of another person, it was open to the Assessing Officer

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property, you have accepted to own two flats.” 5.1 The Ld. AR brought our attention to the notice dated 11.03.2024 (copy at page 1 of the paper book) for penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act and submitted that the notice does not mention which limb of section

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Housing Income Tax Office, PMT Society, Shivajinagar, vs. Pune – 411 005 Bldg., Shankar Sheth Road, Maharashtra. Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra PAN AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010- 2011, arise against

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

MRS. KAMAL MURLIDHAR MOKASHI,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.939/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 ………. अपीलाथ" / Mrs. Kamal Murlidhar Mokashi, At & Post Moshi Taluka, Appellant Haveli District, Pune – 412105. Pan : Dbypm5370H. बनाम V/S ………. ""यथ" / The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi. Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali.

section does not mandate that the new house should be acquired solely and exclusively in the name of assessee. He also placed reliance on the following decisions wherein it has been held that when the entire amount has been invested by the assessee, then deduction cannot be denied solely on the ground that the name

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. SHRI ARUN S. PATIL,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 2(47)(iv) r.w.s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act indicate that gain on property is taxable in the year in which transaction were entered into even if the transfer of an immovable property is not effected or completed under the general law. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred into ignoring that any transaction into any manner which have

ARUN S. PATIL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Section 2(47)(iv) r.w.s. 53A of Transfer of Property Act indicate that gain on property is taxable in the year in which transaction were entered into even if the transfer of an immovable property is not effected or completed under the general law. 5. The ld. CIT(A) erred into ignoring that any transaction into any manner which have

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property situated at Solapur was sold on 30.08.2016 for Rs.50,00,000/-. The cost of acquisition was stated to be Rs.53,00,000/-. The property was acquired on 16.02.2016. There was short term capital loss of Rs.3,00,000/-. Name of the purchaser, his PAN and his complete address was given. The three cheques drawn on Saraswat Bank bearing

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

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

274 read with\nsection 270A of the Act, without appreciating the fact that the\nadditions made by the Ld. AO are not in accordance with the law.\nWithout prejudice to the above grounds\n16. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the\nAO has erred in passing the impugned Assessment Order under\nSection 143(3) read

VILLO NOSHIR ANKLESARIA,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2281/Pun/2017 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Mrs. Villo Noshir Anklesaria Plot No.10/3, Sr. No.29, Dhunjibhoy & Sanas Compound, Nibm Road, Kondhwa, Pune-411 048. Pan : Aazpa3341F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

house property, profit and gains of business & profession and other sources. The assessee has filed return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income of Rs.14,46,578/- and the total income was assessed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) to Rs.58,98,783/- by the Assessing Officer on 29.12.2009. The Assessing Officer

OMPRAKASH B. TIWADI,SOLAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

house property and interest income. Assessee filed his return of income for A.Y. 2000-01 declaring loss of Rs.1,18,512/-. The return was initially processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.02.2002. Subsequently, the case was re-opened by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

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

House 1,99,46,143 35,90,308 2,35,36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed

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

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

House 1,99,46,143 35,90,308 2,35,36,451 Total 17,49,83,488 3,14,97,032 20,64,80,520 19. However, we find the Assessing Officer in the impugned assessment order, has made the entire addition of bogus / untested purchases and these orders of the Assessing Officer passed u/s 143(3) / 147 were passed