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”].

46A before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his pending appeals against assessments u/s 153A for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. xi. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction for those two assessment years (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010- 11) against which Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon’ble ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018

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”].

46A before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in his pending appeals against assessments u/s 153A for assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. xi. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the deduction for those two assessment years (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010- 11) against which Revenue preferred appeal before the Hon’ble ITA No’s.110 to 112/PUN/2018

M/S. MHARASHTRA ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 115JB is higher even if tax on enhanced income is considered. Ground No : 4 The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, omit, amend, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.” The Revenue in its appeal has impugned the order of First Appellate Authority on following grounds : “1. Whether

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MHARASHTRA ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

Section 115JB is higher even if tax on enhanced income is considered. Ground No : 4 The appellant craves leave to add, to alter, omit, amend, delete or substitute all or any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.” The Revenue in its appeal has impugned the order of First Appellate Authority on following grounds : “1. Whether

SHIVAJI RAMDAS SAKHARE,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(4), PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1567/Pun/2017 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivaji Ramdas Sakhare, Survey No.87/1/1(P), Sakhare Wasti, Hinjewadi, Mulshi, Pune- 412 106. .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Awnps8232K बनधम / V/S. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ito, 2(4), Pune Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe

section 45: 4.2.1 On a plain reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the deduction is available only when the assessee has either constructed or purchased new property being a residential house within the prescribed time limit i.e. one year before or two/three years after as the case may be, from the date of transfer of the original

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash Chaudhari

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash Chaudhari

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash Chaudhari

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash Chaudhari

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI MAHESH BHAGWAT CHAUDHARY,, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.629 To 634/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 To 2011-12 वष"

section 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Ground No.3 raised by the revenue is therefore dismissed. 16. Ground No.4 by the Revenue relates to deletion of Rs.52,13,333/- by the CIT(A) as undisclosed investment in properties. 17. Briefly stated relevant facts are that during the course of assessment proceedings in the case of Shri Rajesh Prakash Chaudhari

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed\nfor statistical purposes

house property. In its application,\nthe assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is\ndistributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined\nas per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income\nexcept the portion of income which is not declared by any of the\nbeneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SUSHILA SUDHAKAR PINGALE,PEN vs. ITO, WARD 3, PANVEL, PANVEL

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.869/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sushila Sudhakar Pingale, V The Income Tax Officer, Pezari, Poynad Alibag, S Ward-3, Panvel. Raigad – 402109. Maharashtra. Pan: Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Madhan Thirmanpallil – Addl.Cit(Dr) – Virtual Hearing. Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025

46A of IT Rules 1962 and refusing to admit the additional evidences furnished during appellate proceedings, ITA No.869/PUN/2025 [A] inspite of the fact that the appellant who is a retired school teacher was unaware of the assessment proceedings and therefore was prevented by sufficient cause from producing such evidences before the Id AO. The appellant prays that the additional evidences

ROASHAN VISHNU PATHARE, L/H OF VISHNU TUKARAM PATHARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4(4),, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.221/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

section 54F deduction claim of Rs.60,18,750/- in the course of assessment dated 31.03.2015 as upheld in the CIT(A)’s order, it emerges during the course of hearing on perusal of not only assessment discussions but also from the learned CIT(A)’s findings that he has fails to prove that he has reinvested the corresponding capital gain

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

property and bring it to assessment. It is not merely an information of undisclosed income but also to seize money, bullion etc. representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for the purposes of realization of taxes, penalties etc. Search and seizure is a serious invasion in the privacy of the person. Section 132 which is a complete code

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

property and bring it to assessment. It is not merely an information of undisclosed income but also to seize money, bullion etc. representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for the purposes of realization of taxes, penalties etc. Search and seizure is a serious invasion in the privacy of the person. Section 132 which is a complete code

GARWARE TECHNICAL FIBRES LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), PUNE

In the result, all the eight appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed and the only appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

property and bring it to assessment. It is not merely an information of undisclosed income but also to seize money, bullion etc. representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for the purposes of realization of taxes, penalties etc. Search and seizure is a serious invasion in the privacy of the person. Section 132 which is a complete code