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

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

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

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

house property has to be the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto and not merely the holder of an interest therein. If that is the explicit meaning given to the word "property" in section 22, any other meaning to the same word appearing in section 24(b) cannot be ascribed. What is referred to in this section

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

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

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

house property has to be the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto and not merely the holder of an interest therein. If that is the explicit meaning given to the word "property" in section 22, any other meaning to the same word appearing in section 24(b) cannot be ascribed. What is referred to in this section

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

42,433/-. 8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the grounds. So far as the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for self occupied house property is concerned, he dismissed the same by observing as under: “8. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. In the present case, the original return

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

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.75/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Michelle Yohan Poonawalla, The Dy.Cit, Circle-7, Pune. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, 2Nd Vs Floor, Dr.Ambedkar Road, . Opp.Niv, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aanpv 5236 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Bharat Patel – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walime & Shir Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 28/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-8, Pune Dated 31.12.2019For The A.Y.2014-15.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “The Following Grounds Are Taken Without Prejudice To Each Other - On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, 1] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Fact That - A. In Order To Arrive At Actual Rent As Defined U/Sec.23(1)(D) In Case Of Let Out Property, Expenditure Incurred For Earning Such Rent Shall Be Deducted At Threshold Level Itself. B. Principles Of Real Income Are Ignored While Denying Deduction Of Interest Paid By Appellant For Acquiring Possession Of Property (I.E. Flat No.11, Breach Candy Garden, Mumbai) From Statutory Tenant. 2] The Learned Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate That Payment Of

house property. In this case the impugned property is Flat No.11 but the Loan is for the Flat No.12 & Garage No.12G which are different. Thus, the loan was not borrowed for the impugned Flat No.11. Assessee had claimed that the loan was used for making payment to the Tenants of Flat No.11, but mere oral recital does not hold good

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act’), the AO opined that the Annual .Letting Value of the property was required to be determined and added to the assessee’s total income. The assessee’s contention that two units in respect of which "income from house property" was proposed to be computed, were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act’), the AO opined that the Annual .Letting Value of the property was required to be determined and added to the assessee’s total income. The assessee’s contention that two units in respect of which "income from house property" was proposed to be computed, were

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE vs. BALKRISHNAN SHANMUGHAM CHETTIAR, ALIAS S. BALAN,, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No’S.110, 111 & 112/Pun/2021 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 The Asst. Commissioner Of M/S.Balkrishna Shanmugham Income Tax, Central Circle- Vs Chettiar Alias S. Balan, 1(1), Pune. . 1133/5, Nirankar F.C.Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aalpc 5158 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri M R Bhagwat – Ar Revenue By Shr Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 08/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 16/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: These Revenue’S Three Appeals For Ays 2015-16 To 2017-18 Arise Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)-11, Pune’S Separate Orders; All Dated 20.01.2021, Passed In Case Nos.Itba/Apl/S/250/2020-21/1029928824(1), Itba/Apl/S/ 250/2020-21/1029929977(1) & Itba/Apl/S/250/2020- 21/1029930177(1); Respectively, In Proceedings U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called 'the Act’), the AO opined that the Annual .Letting Value of the property was required to be determined and added to the assessee’s total income. The assessee’s contention that two units in respect of which "income from house property" was proposed to be computed, were

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

42,433/-. 8. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed both the grounds. So far as the disallowance of interest on borrowed capital for self occupied house property is concerned, he dismissed the same by observing as under: "8. I have considered the facts of the case and submissions made by the appellant. In the present case, the original return

YOGITA MANOJ TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. ITO 12(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yogita Manoj Tatooskar, V The Income Tax Officer, 504, Anandban, Chs, Ashok S Ward-12(1), Pune. Path, Maharashtra – 411004. Pan: Abopt9276A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Miss Indira R Adkil – Add.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13; Dated 28.10.2024; Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.11.2013. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Submit The

42,258/- in respect of income from house property was not justified at all and the same should have been deleted. 4] The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the rental income of the other co-owners was wrongly added in the hands of the assessee and hence, the addition made was not justified and the same may kindly

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

section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called „the Act‟), the AO opined that the Annual Letting Value of the property was required to be determined and added to the assessee‟s total income. The assessee‟s contention that two units in respect of which “Income from house property” was proposed to be computed, were

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

section 23(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called „the Act‟), the AO opined that the Annual Letting Value of the property was required to be determined and added to the assessee‟s total income. The assessee‟s contention that two units in respect of which “Income from house property” was proposed to be computed, were

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

Housing Loan for Flat No.7 Shivanjali Near Mahadev Temple, Indra Nagae, Chinchwad, Pune-411033 against which the Assessee has claimed deduction u/s.24(b) claiming this impugned flat as self-occupied property. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs.55,292/- is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No.2 : 11. This Ground relates

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

Housing Loan for Flat No.7 Shivanjali Near Mahadev Temple, Indra Nagae, Chinchwad, Pune-411033 against which the Assessee has claimed deduction u/s.24(b) claiming this impugned flat as self-occupied property. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs.55,292/- is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No.2 : 11. This Ground relates

M/S. G G ASSOCIATES,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1946/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S. G. G. Associates, San Mahu Complex 5, Bund Garden Road, Opp. Poona Club, Pune-411001. Pan: Aaffg5234G ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. ..……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishana Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Maruti W. Maddewad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.07.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07.07.2020 आदेश / Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Cit(Appeal), Pune-5 Dated 15.06.2017 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal On Record: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honourable Cit (Appeal) - 5, Pune Erred In Confirming The Addition Made By The Learned Ao Of Rs. 1,26,000/- To The Income Of The Appellant Under The Head “Income From House Property” Being The Annual Letting Value Of The Unsold Units Lying As Stock In Trade Of The Appellant Without Appreciating The Fact That The Appellant Is Engaged In The Business Of Real Estate Development & The Unsold Flats Are Held As Stock In Trade & Not As Investment. The Appellant Hereby Prays That The Said Addition Of Rs.1,26,000/- May Please Be Deleted.

42 ITR 49 (SC) and S.G. Mercantile Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (1972) 83 ITR 700 (SC). It has been held in the latter decision that where a builder, being, owner lets out property for some time pending sale, the income so derived is to be taxed under the head “Income from house property” and not as “Business income

MICHELLE Y.POONAWALLA,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 4 ,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

house property and clause (iiib) of section 27 of the Act refers to section 269 UA of the Act. He referred to Para No. 5 of the impugned order and argued that the assessee had purchased the said property on 06-09-2001 and since then she has been the legal owner of the property and the provisions

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

42,71,818/-; disallowed to the extent of Rs.2,52,50,000/; in the course of assessment dated 05.12.2022 and partly upheld in CIT(A)-NFAC’s detailed discussion as under : “5.1. Ground of Appeal No.1: The appellant objects to restricting the deduction to 50% of the Purchase cost of New Property, by the AO on the reasoning that