BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

30 results for “house property”+ Section 392clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka348Mumbai267Delhi211Bangalore94Hyderabad67Chennai54Jaipur35Pune30Amritsar26Ahmedabad20Lucknow20Kolkata16Indore15Raipur13Rajkot10Chandigarh10Nagpur9Visakhapatnam8Telangana8Cuttack7SC6Varanasi4Panaji2Calcutta2Cochin1Surat1Rajasthan1Punjab & Haryana1Andhra Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)29Addition to Income19Section 14A17Section 2416Section 153A15Section 143(2)14Section 143(3)14Section 201(1)12Section 80I9

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 665/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

section 24 means not only the ownership of property but also getting possession simultaneously therefore, interest on borrowed money utilized for payment of compensation to the statutory tenant was allowable as deduction (if not U/sec.23) U/sec. 24 of the IT Act' 1961. c. Borrowed money was utilized for acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property

Showing 1–20 of 30 · Page 1 of 2

House Property9
Disallowance8
Deduction7

MICHELLE Y. POONAWALLA,PUNE vs. DCIT-CIR-7, PUNE , PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 2013-14

ITA 664/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Sept 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 22Section 23Section 24Section 263Section 57

section 24 means not only the ownership of property but also getting possession simultaneously therefore, interest on borrowed money utilized for payment of compensation to the statutory tenant was allowable as deduction (if not U/sec.23) U/sec. 24 of the IT Act' 1961. c. Borrowed money was utilized for acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property

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

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

ITA 2795/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2012-13

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.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

property i.e. builders. The housing project undertaken by the assessee was approved by the competent authority and accordingly, assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act of 100% of the profit from the housing project. We noted that Chapter XII BA i.e. special provisions relating to certain persons other than a company was introduced by the Finance

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

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

ITA 2796/PUN/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Nov 2019AY 2013-14

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.

For Appellant: Shri Kishor PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Milind Chahure
Section 132Section 68Section 80I

property i.e. builders. The housing project undertaken by the assessee was approved by the competent authority and accordingly, assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act of 100% of the profit from the housing project. We noted that Chapter XII BA i.e. special provisions relating to certain persons other than a company was introduced by the Finance

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 1188/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Feb 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anand PartaniFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 132(4)Section 50CSection 56(2)(x)Section 69C

property mentioned on seized documents is written as Vimannagar, the said area is in Pune and not in Jalna. Thus, addition made on probability and presumption on the basis of dumb documents is not sustainable. The AO has not been able to prove that the appellant has received on money on sale of residential house. Therefore, the impugned addition

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 33/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2005) 94 TTJ 392 (Ahd.), affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in Tax Appeals No. 1496 to 1498 of 2005 dated 12.07.2006 held that reference u/s 142A of the Act can be made only when the proceedings under the Act are pending and not otherwise. The SLP of the Revenue filed before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA vs. ROYAL ESTATES, AURANGABAD, MAHARASHTRA

In the result, the appeals of Revenue for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13

ITA 34/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak
Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 69

Housing Society Ltd. Vs. ITO (2005) 94 TTJ 392 (Ahd.), affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in Tax Appeals No. 1496 to 1498 of 2005 dated 12.07.2006 held that reference u/s 142A of the Act can be made only when the proceedings under the Act are pending and not otherwise. The SLP of the Revenue filed before

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 20/PUN/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

house property”. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the issue relating to the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, considering the submissions made before him that interest free funds as well as surplus reserve funds far exceeds the loans

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR BUILDER MUMBAI REALTY PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 22/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

house property”. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the issue relating to the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, considering the submissions made before him that interest free funds as well as surplus reserve funds far exceeds the loans

JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE 14, PUNE vs. KUMAR URBAN DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

ITA 21/PUN/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Aug 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S. PathakFor Respondent: Shri Abhinay Kumbhar &
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 36(1)(iii)Section 43B

house property”. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of assessment, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order allowed the issue relating to the disallowance of interest u/s 36(1)(iii) of the Act, considering the submissions made before him that interest free funds as well as surplus reserve funds far exceeds the loans

AMBADAS K. LAVHALE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1292/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1292/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

For Appellant: Shri Pavan ChakrapaniFor Respondent: Shri Sudhanshu Shekhar
Section 10Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property is exempt from capital gain tax. As such, the said income was not offered to tax. There was no any malafide intention to furnish any inaccurate particulars of income or hide something. 2. However, the Ld. AO, without appreciating the facts of the case, passed the penalty order u/s.271

DHANANJAY HARI GADGIL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1963/PUN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property and income from other source. Assessee filed original return of income on 31-08-2000 declaring total income of Rs.6,36,170/-. There was search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of Gagdil group in which assessee was also covered. Notice u/s.153A(a) was issued on the assessee

DHANANJAY HARI GADGIL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1964/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property and income from other source. Assessee filed original return of income on 31-08-2000 declaring total income of Rs.6,36,170/-. There was search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of Gagdil group in which assessee was also covered. Notice u/s.153A(a) was issued on the assessee

DHANANJAY HARI GADGIL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1965/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property and income from other source. Assessee filed original return of income on 31-08-2000 declaring total income of Rs.6,36,170/-. There was search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of Gagdil group in which assessee was also covered. Notice u/s.153A(a) was issued on the assessee

DHANANJAY HARI GADGIL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1962/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property and income from other source. Assessee filed original return of income on 31-08-2000 declaring total income of Rs.6,36,170/-. There was search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of Gagdil group in which assessee was also covered. Notice u/s.153A(a) was issued on the assessee

DHANANJAY HARI GADGIL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1961/PUN/2016[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2000-01

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1961 To 1965/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Years : 2000-01 To 2002-03 & 2004-05 To 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Pathak
Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

house property and income from other source. Assessee filed original return of income on 31-08-2000 declaring total income of Rs.6,36,170/-. There was search and seizure action u/s.132(1) of the Act at the residential as well as business premises of Gagdil group in which assessee was also covered. Notice u/s.153A(a) was issued on the assessee

MAGARPATTA TOWNSHIP DEVELOPMENT & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

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

ITA 2945/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2945/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Magarpatta Township Development & Construction Co. Ltd., 13, Megaspace, Sholapur Bazar Road, Off East Street, Camp, Pune-411001. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabcm2461K बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-14, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Sakharam Sable Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 9, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 30.10.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “A) The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs.3,86,352/- On Account Of Disallowance U/S 14A Read With Rule- 8(D), While The Appellant Company Has Not Received Any Sum By Way Of Exempt Income. Further, The Appellant Company Has Not Made Any Additional Investments Generating Exempt Income During The Year. The Company Has Not Utilized Any Borrowed Funds For Investments. On The Similar Facts, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Deleted The Disallowance For A.Y. 2009-10 & 2011-12. The Same Has Been Upheld By Itat (Pune Bench) For A.Y. 2009-10. Therefore, In The Light Of Various Judicial Decisions, This Disallowance Being Unwarranted Needs Cancellation. B) The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Modify, Expand The Ground(S) Of Appeal & Lay/Produce The Evidence(S) At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sakharam SableFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe
Section 143(3)Section 14A

house property’ as against the claim of the assessee that it should be assessed under the head ‘income from business’ and made addition of Rs.3,86,352/- u/s 14A of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order held the issue of assessment

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

ITA 24/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Sept 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

Section 250Section 68o

house property income, capital gains and income from other sources. 2. In the return of income, the Appellant merged personal balance sheet with balance sheet of proprietary concern, which resulted in adding opening capital of Rs. 19.04 crores and corresponding personal assets in the balance sheet. 3. The learned AO considers this treatment as introduction of capital and issued show

SMT. SUNITA G. DESAI,,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, RATNAGIRI

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

ITA 2761/PUN/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2761/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Smt.Sunitag.Desai, The Income Tax Officer, Master Plaza, Jakadevi, Vs Ward-1, Ratnagiri. Khalgaon, Ratnagiri. Pan: Abopd 2868 A Appellant/ Revenue Respondent/ Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 21/04/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Kolhapur Dated 01.09.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Ito, Ward-1, Ratnagiri (Hereinafter Referred To As The Learned Ao) In Assessing Total Income Of Appellant At Rs, 50,34,254/- Instead Of Returned Income Of Rs. 4,05,200/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Erred In Law & On Facts In Sustaining The Additionof Rs.33,79,054/- Made By The Learned Ao U/S 69C Of The Ita, 1961 For The Bogus Purchases From M/S. Adijin Enterprises & M/S. Hiten Enterprises; Without Appreciating That, No Any Enquiries Were Carried Out By The L-T Authorities In This Regard. 3. The Learned Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur & The Learned Ao Erred In Law & On Facts In Not Appreciating That, The Said Bogus Purchases Of Rs. 33,79,054/- Were, Intact, Capitalized To Plant & Machinery & Depreciation Of Only Rs. 5,06,958/- (I.E. 15% Of Rs. 33,79,054/-) Was Claimed As A Deduction By Appellant During Ay 2009-10. The Learned

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 32Section 41(1)Section 69Section 69C

house property of Rs.(-1,50,000), Profit from Vijayent Crusher of Rs.5,64,850/-. The case was selected for scrutiny. Assessment order was passed on 31.3.2015 u/s 143(3) rws147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer (AO) had received certain information regarding hawala purchases from Investigation wing of the department. The Investigation wing had received list of hawala dealers

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

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 2874/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 32Section 36(1)(iii)

Housing Corporation WIP Statement as on March-13 Sr No Project Estimated Cost to complete (Balance) 8 Total Cost of the Completion Percentage of Completion as on March- 13 9 Sale Value 10 Area Sold in sq ft. to sq ft. 11 Area Sold in March 12 12 Area Sold in Total Saleable Sold Area/Cost sq ft. April-12 Area