INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. PRAKASH RAMKRISHNA POPHALE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

section 54(1) of the Act, according to which the construction should be completed within three years from the date of transfer of original asset. He noted that in this case, the original asset was transferred on 26.07.2017 and therefore, the date of completion of the construction should be on or before 26.07.2019. Since the construction was not completed before

JOHN THOMAS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13 (5),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

54F clause (1) of the Act as it states that the income from such residential house property other than one residential house owned on the date of transfer of the original asset is chargeable under the head “income from house property”. The Tribunal has considered the provisions of section

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

House Property’ without any evidence of repairs but once the Income is treated as business income the deductions is not automatic . Thus, there is definitely enhancement. Therefore, the CIT(A) was duty bound to follow procedure laid down in Section 251(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the Section 251 is reproduced here under : 251. (1

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

House Property’ without any evidence of repairs but once the Income is treated as business income the deductions is not automatic . Thus, there is definitely enhancement. Therefore, the CIT(A) was duty bound to follow procedure laid down in Section 251(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the Section 251 is reproduced here under : 251. (1

SONALI KIRAN SHIVARKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT- CIRCLE-7, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1881/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sonali Kiran Shiv Arkar, The Deputy L/H Of Late Kiran Sopanrao Vs Commissioner Of Income Shivarkar, A-204, Ganga Tax, Cirlce-7, Pune. Savera, Shivarkar Road, Wanawadi, Pune – 411040. Pan: Aprps 3509 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18/10/2022 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(Appeals)-8, Pune, Dated 11.09.2019 For The A.Y.2014-15. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Erred In Law & Without Considering Facts & Submission Made, Claimed U/S 54F Amounting To Rs.24,72,272/- In Respect Of Investment In Second Residential House. The Appellant Prays That Deduction U/S 54F Be Allowed In Respect Of Second Residential House.” 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee Filed Original Return On 18/11/2014 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.2,41,550/-. The Assessee Then Filed Revised Return On 27/03/2015 Declaring Total Income Of

54F. (1) [Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

SAFIQUE SADRUDDIN BALSARRA,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6 (3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property or constructing the residential house within the period stipulated in section 54F(1) of the Act. He submits that

DASHRATH V.WAGASKAR,,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.270/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asha Bhausahebthube, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Heir Of Late Vs Ward-1(4), Nashik. Mr.Dashrathv.Wagaskar), Gat No.63, Wagaskar House, Anandvalli, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422 013. Pan: Aampw 5276 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishore B Phadke– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 14/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/05/2022

section 54F of the ITA, 1961 is not fulfilled. The learned CIT(A)-1, ought to have appreciated that, the funds received on sale of land were blocked by SBI for recovery & repayment of loans of M/s. Prathmesh Ceramics Pvt. Ltd. and were not released in-spite of several requests made by the appellant, so that residential house property

HANUMANT CHANGDEO NAKHATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G.D. Padmashaliassessment Year 2015-16 The Dcit, Circle-8, Shri Hanumant Changdeo Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Nakhat, Bapu Niwas, Ram Vs Dr. Ambedkar Marg, Nagar, Rahatani, Nr. Akurdi Rly Station, Pune – 411 017. Pradhikaran, Pune Pan Acypn6082D Pin 411 044. Appellant Respondent

properties made between 01.04.2014 to 31.03.2015 as follows : 5. “Both the learned representatives reiterated their respective stands against and in support of the learned PCIT’s impugned revision directions. The first and foremost issue that arises for our apt adjudication is regarding the allowability of assessee’s section 54F deduction claim regarding reinvestment of his long term capital gains

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE,, AHMEDNAGAR vs. SANJAY NEMICHAND LOHADE,, AHMEDNAGAR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

sections 54 & 54F as well. 8. It is submitted before Your Honour that it is not in dispute that the property which was purchased by the appellant and claimed exemption U/sec. 54F is the bungalow along with land, which is house property as per municipal records and taxes have also been paid as residential property. It is further submitted that

NANDLAL DULICHAND GUPTA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

1) of the Act vide Finance Act, 2014 w.e.f. assessment year 2015-16 that “a residential house”, stands substituted by “one residential house” only. We find in this factual backdrop that this tribunal’s coordinate bench’s order in Arunkumar Purushottamlal Khanna, Pune vs. PCIT (Central), Pune in ITA.No. 181/PUN/2021 dated 06.07.2022 has rejected the Revenue’s identical stand

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

1(5), [2008] 173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

1(5), [2008] 173 Taxman 311 (Bombay). 5.3. I have gone through the said judgement quoted by the AO. In that case the seller of original property did not buy in joint name but in the sole name of his son and his name was not mentioned as a owner in the new property. Thus the facts of the case

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

properties amounting to Rs.55,02,100/- and Rs.50,00,000/- The provision of section 54F is as under: 54F. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of art assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family, the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential

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

54F (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (4), where, in the case of an assessee being an individual or a Hindu undivided family], the capital gain arises from the transfer of any long-term capital asset, not being a residential house (hereafter in this section referred to as the original asset), and the assessee has, within a period

SMT. SANGEETA GANPATI JADHAV,PUNE vs. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

The appeal stands allowed

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 123/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016 Smt. Sangeeta Ganpati Jadhav D-406, Neha Co-Op. Society, Sus, Pune-411045. . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan : Aefpj8933A बनाम / V/S. Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Pune. द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Dhananjay Barve Revenue By : Shri Sardar Singh Meena. सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 08/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Assessee Is Agitated Against The Order Of Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax-(Pr-Cit-2), Pune [For Short “Ccit”] Dt. 17/02/2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Dove Out Of The Order Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) By Asstt. Cit, Circle-4 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Vide Order Dt. 21/12/2017, For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 17

section 263 of the Act. 3. Tersely stated the facts of the case are; the assessee is an individual deriving income from salaries, house property, capital gains and other sources etc., has for AY 2015-16 e-filed her return of income [for short “ITR”] on 26/08/2015 declaring total income of ₹20,76,520/- after a claim of chapter

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. GHANSHYAM M KACHI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryacit, Circle-6, Vs Ghanshyam M. Kachi, Pune. 1101, Raviwar Peth, Pune-411 002 Pan: Aqwpk 4253 H Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee C.O.No. 11/Pun/2021 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2127/Pun/2017) (A.Y. 2014-15) Ghanshyam M. Kachi, Vs Acit, Circle-6, 1101, Raviwar Peth, Pune. Pune-411 002 Pan: Aqwpk 4253 H Applicant/Assessee Respondent/Revenue

property as well as the housing project has not commenced. As regards the claim of exemption u/s 54EC amounting to Rs.50,00,000/-, the AO disallowed the claim for exemption u/sec.54EC in respect of second installment of Rs.50,00,000/- made on 27.08.2014 by holding that the assessee is entitled for deduction u/sec. 54EC only to the extent of Rs.50

DHANANJAY KISAN TAPKIR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 10(2), PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 54F deduction claim of Rs.12,00,000/-, Mr. Jasnani inviting my attention to the lower appellate discussion as follows :- “Ground No. 1 is addition made by the A.O. worth Rs. 12,00,000/- as long term capital gains. During the appellate stage, the assessee has contended that it has constructed the house property

MAHADEV DASU JADHAV,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD 1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

1 year and 6 months prior to the sale of the asset. The date of sale of the property is 19/01/2007 and 22/01/2007 respectively. Thus, as per the provision of section 54F, to avail the exemption, the assessee was required to purchase the house