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

VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, 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

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 :

35,886 which was the excess of income over expenditure. 5. That the orders passed are bad in law as the appellant has been granted registration under section 12AB of I.T. Act, 1961 w.e.f. A.Y. 2022-23 by way of order dated 12.10.2021 under sub section (i) of clause (ac) of sub section (1) of section 12A and the proviso

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section 234, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as they apply

SINDHUDURG ZILLA MADHYAMIK VA UCHHA MADHYAMIK SHIKSHAK VA SHIKSHKETAR KARMACHARI PATSANSTHA LTD,SINDHUDURGNAGARI KUDAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER KUDAL, KUDAL

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.968/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sindhuurg Zilla Madhyamik Va The Income Tax Officer, Uchha Madhyamik Shikshak Va V Kudal. Shikshketar Karmachari S Patsanstha Ltd., Plot No.33, Sindhudurgnagari, Kudal Dist, Sindhudurg. Maharashtra – 416812. Pan: Aagas6518L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak, Irs – Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing 22/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.08.2023 Emanating From Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Dated 21.04.2021. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

35,572/-. Aggrieved by the same, assessee filed appeal before the ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals). 3. Assessee failed to appear before the ld.CIT(A) and failed to file the details. However, in the statement of facts filed before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee submitted that assessee had inadvertently claimed deduction under section 80P(2)(f) while filing the return

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

House\n5\nITA No.1016/PUN/2024\nRajendra Rasiklal Shah\n(India) Pvt. Ltd. reported in (2017) 391 ITR 154 (P&H). While concluding, Ld. Counsel for the assessee also referred to the affidavit of the vendor, No.4 i.e. seller of the property Milind Balasaheb Kale affirming the receipt of the part consideration through banking channel on 08.01.1997. He therefore prayed that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

property development since over 35 years. The Assessee is one of the oldest and renowned name in Aurangabad in the construction business. 2. It is our regular business practice to provide the standard row house/residential unit as originally designed and we do not allow the customisation of the row house. The customers many a times in past requested

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

35,800 2,08,300 25/04/2013 B4/402 Ibahim F Siddhpuri 27,98,000 31,15,800 3,17,800 13/09/2013 B6/901 Salim Hatim Ali 30,79,700 33,71,500 2,91,800 13/09/2013 B6/902 Salim Hatim Ali 30,79,700 33,71,500 2,91,800 05/02/2014 B5/402 Ahmadi Saifuddin Sher

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 PAN: AAICA8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

Section 55 of Transfer Property Act, 1882 and cannot be treated as valid transactions as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.15,13,95,000/- ignoring the fact that the Agreement

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

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

2 and 4 against the deletion of addition of Rs.86,63,700/- and Rs.7,93,62,371/- made by the 35 ITA.No.987/PUN./2025 (M/s. Shree Sai Properties) Assessing Officer. We observe that the information contained in the alleged seized material is only having a reference of the words “367 Makhmalabad” and that referring to sale consideration received through cheque

INCOME AX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE vs. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

MR. SAMBHAJI MARUTI KATKAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 6(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

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

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

35,812 and second, by booking business loss of Rs.10,58,49,880. A copy of the ledger account of the broker is placed on record vide Page No. 962 of the PB-V. Appellant regrets the mention that "page No. 969 of Paper-Book- V" was present on the file of the learned AO. This mistake was occurred

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

section 53A of the Transfer of property Act. Hence the amount received by the appellant as part of the Compromise Agreement in settling the court cases cannot be considered as amount received for transfer of property. On the contrary, the learned Assessing Officer himself at Paragraph No: 03.2.1 (Page Nos 9 & 10) of the assessment order had stated that