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

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

50% deemed rental income in the respect of certain immovable properties. We find ld.CIT(A) has affirmed the action of the AO of calculating notional rent for the following four properties owned by the assessee : 1. Land and Construction at 1221,B/1, Wrangler, Paranjape Road, Pune, Maharashtra. 2. 6, Vertex Arcade, 1281, Sadashiv Peth, Pune, Maharashtra 3. Shop No.A8, Shree

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

50,000/- under section 80C of IT ACT, 1961, being the principal amount repaid on housing loan without appreciating the facts of the case and further rejecting the appellant’s contention that copy of loan account statement wherein the principal repayment is clearly reflected, should be sufficient compliance of the supporting documents called for. Your appellant prays to allowance

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

50,000/- under section 80C of IT ACT, 1961, being the principal amount repaid on housing loan without appreciating the facts of the case and further rejecting the appellant’s contention that copy of loan account statement wherein the principal repayment is clearly reflected, should be sufficient compliance of the supporting documents called for. Your appellant prays to allowance

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

50% of the Purchase cost of New Property, by the AO on the reasoning that he is not the absolute owner of the Property as the property was jointly registered in his name as well as in the name of his son Sh Rakesh Katkar. The appellant claims that the appellant is a senior citizen

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

50% of the Purchase cost of New Property, by the AO on the reasoning that he is not the absolute owner of the Property as the property was jointly registered in his name as well as in the name of his son Sh Rakesh Katkar. The appellant claims that the appellant is a senior citizen

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

section 143(1) of the Act, Income from House Property was enhanced from Rs.1,30,752/- to Rs.9,73,010/-. The Assessee claimed before ld.CIT(A) that Assessee is one of the owners of a showroom wherein Assessee’s share is 25%. They have received Rent of Rs.16,04,300/-. After deducting 30%, Assessee’s share comes to Rs.2

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

50,000/-) as the additional income of M/s Tapadia Constructions Ltd. for A.Y. 2019-20. We offering the profitability of these 12 Row houses as we have handed over." 5.4 In the present case, the dispute revolves around the provisions of Sec. 269SS of the Act. The provisions of this section prohibit an assessee to accept from any other person

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

50,868/-. 3 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A] 3.1 The AO discussed the issue at length in the assessment order. The AO accepted Return of Income filed in response to notice under section 148. The AO initiated penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. In the assessment order, the AO has categorically mentioned that assessee

SHRI VINAY BADERA,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Vinay Badera Acit, Circle 3, Pune 303, Rohan Tapovan, Sb Road, Vs. Gokhale Nagar, Pune – 411016 Pan: Abjpb1324J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-03-2025 O R D E R

section 57(iii) of the Act, any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, is allowed as deduction against income shown as ‘Income from other sources’. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the details of deductions claimed u/s 57 along

KAILAS KANTILAL KOTHARI,NASHIK vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(1)(a) of the Act granted to the assessee prior to making adjustments. On merits, it is contended that rental income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been again added in the hands of the assessee for the self-occupied property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal issue

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

MRS. SNEHAL SAMEER BHUJBAL,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 13(2), PUNE, PUNE

Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1549/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mrs. Snehal Sameer Bhujbal, V The Income Tax Officer, Sanswadi, Nagar Road, S Ward-13(2), Pune. Pune – 412208. Maharashtra. Pan: Blcpb5495C Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19 Dated 16.05.2025, Emanating From Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 19.01.2024. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held

Housing Finance Ltd. The Assessee has failed to furnish the source of balance investment amounting to Rs.23,00,771/-. Therefore, the unexplained investments amounting to Rs.23,00,771/- is treated as deemed income of the assessee for the F.Y.2017-18 as per provision of section 69 of the Act and is subjected to tax as per provisions of section 115BBE

TANAJI PARILAL GAWADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2013-14

50,000/- being interest paid for self occupied property was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted from the bank statement of Saraswat Co-operative Bank Ltd., Kharadi Branch, Pune that the assessee has made cash deposit of Rs.113,23,000/- during the relevant assessment year. He therefore, asked the assessee to produce proof and source

PRASAD DATTATRYA THAKAR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 14,, PUNE

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

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

property a sum of Rs.1,07,50,000 a long term capital gain, without allowing the deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition as per the provision of law. 3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the deduction under section 54 of the Act. In spite

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.365 & 366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. S Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Both Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

50,590/-. However, appellant did not claim any deduction u/s 80D and 80GG as claimed in the original return of Income. Appellant also did not claim any house property loss. Assessment was completed on 22.09.2021 determining total income at Rs.7,10,990/-. 3.1 It is mentioned in the assessment order that ITO(Inv.), Nashik has conducted a survey u/s 133A

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.365 & 366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. S Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Both Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

50,590/-. However, appellant did not claim any deduction u/s 80D and 80GG as claimed in the original return of Income. Appellant also did not claim any house property loss. Assessment was completed on 22.09.2021 determining total income at Rs.7,10,990/-. 3.1 It is mentioned in the assessment order that ITO(Inv.), Nashik has conducted a survey u/s 133A

RANAJIT SURESH RAJAMANE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, PANDHARPUR, PANDHARPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1678/Pun/2024 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ranajit Suresh Rajamane, Vs Ito Ward 1, Shukrawar Peth, Pandharpur Tembhurni Madha Solapur- 413211 Maharashtra Pan-Bmepr3878N Appellant Respondent

50,33,627/- 26.09.2014 37,54,907/- Cash in advance 13,75,476/- Total Rs. 1,27,64,010/- 7. In the above details the major payment has been made through Bank channel and the same stands verified through Bank statements placed at Paper Book page No. 30-45. There is no dispute at the end of revenue about