VIVEK NATHURAM GAVHANE,PUNE vs. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.849/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

house property. Out of 22,70,000/-, rent received for the FY 2019-20 is Rs 7,70,000/- and the remaining amount of Rs 15,00,000/- is in reference with the arrears of rent received pertaining to the previous year for a period of 6 months viz-a-viz 2,50,000/- per month from October

SULOCHANA LAXMIKANT BHALE,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-1(1), AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1594/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13

house property on 27.02.2012 by furnishing the sale deed. The balance amount of Rs.6,80,000/- was stated to have been deposited out of her own savings. Thereafter, a notice u/s.142(1) was issued to the appellant on 07.11.2019 calling upon to explain the various claims made by her. Notices u/s.143(2)/show cause notice were issued to the appellant

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

282/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars which is incorrect

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

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

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

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

282 to 354 of the ITA, 1961.\nAll retraction affidavits are brushed aside and not considered in their\nproper perspective.\n3. 2. Premature act to cancel 12A when assessment proceedings are\nongoing\nThe learned PCIT, CC has assumed the jurisdiction for cancellation of\n12A registration of the appellant. It is submitted, learned PCIT ought\nto have considered various issues

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

282 (SC), wherein the Apex court has held that the words used in section 80P "the whole of the amount of profits & gains of business" emphasize that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the society & as such interest earned on funds which

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), PUNE, PUNE vs. PARSHWANATH NAGARI SAHAKARI PARSANSTHA MARYADIT, SATARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

House Property. 3.3. The Assessing Officer relied on various decisions and observed that the decision of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case has not been accepted and appeal has already been filed by the Revenue before the Hon’ble jurisdictional Bombay High Court which is pending on date. The Assessing Officer, 5 ITA.No.1314/PUN./2024 therefore, denied the claim

PUNE MATHADI HAMAL AND OTHER MANUAL WORKERS BOARD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1012/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pune Mathadihamal & Other The Income Tax Manual Workers Board, V Officer, Shramashakti Bhavan, S Ward-5(1), Pune. Coomercial Plot No.1, Market Yard, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aaalp0097L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Vipul Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari & Shri Rajesh Gawali– Dr’S Date Of Hearing 17/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Orders Of Ld.Commissionerof Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Act Dated 14.07.2023 :

housing for the workers, providing scholarships to the wards of the workers, providing full fledge Hospitalisation facility and free medical treatment to the workers etc. The mathadi boards do not carry on any activity for profit. The primary object is to protect the poor manual workers from exploitation by ensuring full wages, labour law benefits, ensuring full utilization of work

MAHARASHTRA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,PUNE vs. CIT-1, PUNE

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1177/Pun/2013 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Maharashtra Cricket Association, 5Th Floor, Amar Avinash Corporate City, 10, Bund Garden Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaatm2192D Vs. The Commissioner Of Income Tax-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Pune

282 (SC). The assessee further explained that even on merits, subsidy was a benefit given and was considered to be in the interest of public. It was a voluntary payment made by one person to another, wherein BCCI gave subsidies voluntarily and gratuitously to all State Cricket Associations, which were affiliated to it, including the assessee. It was further explained

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

House, Tilak Road, Shukrawar Peth, Pune 411 002, Maharashtra PAN : AAATP1435C Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.522/PUN/2023\n2. The Mumbai Obstetrics and Gynaecological Society, C-114, Ist Floor, D-wing Entrance, Trade World, Kamala City, Senapati Bapat Marg, Low Parel (W), Mumbai-400 013 Maharashtra PAN : AAATT4562C Vs. Pr.CIT (Central), Pune\nAppellant Respondent\nआयकर अपील

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Housing Finance Limited has offered the interest income in its return of income filed. Further, the case law quoted by the assessee relates to non-deduction of TDS on account of failure on the part of builder to hand over the possession of the property to the buyers. The FAO has failed to establish the nature of the compensation paid

NAGNATH HANMANTAPPA JALKOTE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

property only in the year 2001 and therefore, the question of assessee incurring this expenditure prior to 2001 did not arise. There is no paper found during the search indicating that the assessee has incurred the expenditure from 1997 to 2001 and on the other hand, Shri Andure has owned up the paper and has also clarified that the paper

SHRI MULTANCHAND BORA TRUST,PUNE vs. ACIT, EXEMPTION, CIRCLE- AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1312/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Shri Multanchand Bora Trust, V The Assistant/Deputy 132B/2A, Ganeshkhind Road, S. Commissioner Of Income Pune – 411007. Tax, Exemption Circle, Aurangabad. Pan: Aafts3329F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shrenik Gandhi Revenue By Shri Amit Bobde –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 09/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Exemption), Pune At Nashik Passed Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2020-21, Dated 30.03.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of The I.T.Act, Dated 20.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Ground No. 1: The Learned Cit (Exemption) Seriously Erred On The Facts & Law, In Exercising The Revisionary Powers Under Section

Housing Finance Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com 213(Pune Tribunal) Submission of ld.DR : 5. Ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the order of ld.CIT(Exemption). 4 ITA No.1312/PUN/2025 [A] Findings & Analysis : 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, Return of Income was filed by Assessee

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT. LTD.,AURANGABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE, NEW DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Section 36\n(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, and further in view of the interpretation\nas stated here-in-above. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n\n10. The Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development\nCorpn. Lid. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 365/25 taxmann.com 564, while\ndealing with

BRAHM PRECISION MATERIALS PVT LTD,AURANGABAD vs. CIT(A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) DELHI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

Section 36\n(1) (vii) of the Income-tax Act, and further in view of the interpretation\nas stated here-in-above. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightly allowed\nthe appeal of the assessee.\n10. The Apex Court in the case of Kerala State Industrial Development\nCorpn. Lid. v. CIT [2012] 349 ITR 365/25 taxmann.com 564, while\ndealing with the State