VIPINCHANDRA M. CHOKHAWALI,NAVAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the Stay Application filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1551/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Along With Stay Application 06/Pun/2024 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1551/Pun/2024) Vipinchandra M. Chokhawala, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Old Station Road, Dal Mill, Dhule Nandurbar, Navapur-425418 Maharashtra Pan : Adnpc8588M Appellant Respondent

2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual deriving income under the head “House Property, Income from S.A.No.06/PUN/2024 Partnership firms, Capital Gains and Income from Other sources. The Return of Income for the A.Y. 2018-19 was filed on 04.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs.78,24,250/-. Against the said return of income

PANDURANG KASHINATH BHILARE,PUNE vs. ITO, (IT) WARD 1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

property by receiving consideration lesser than the stamp duty value are strictly governed by the provisions of section 43CA and the purchaser has nothing to do with this. As the violation of provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act(with effect from 01/04/2017) is prima facie apparent from the copy of index-ii and provisos

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

2 3. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has e-mailed Deed of Assignment dated 26.07.2016 of the property at S.No.696/2, Final Plot No.475 part/6, Plot No.6, Anandnagar Co- operative Housing Society Ltd. which was executed for the consideration of Rs.7,25,00,000/- as sale to Shri Ramesh Shreehari Kondhare

AKASH ,NOIDA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (IT), WARD-1, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

House No.1140, Sector-29, Officer(IT), Noida – 201303. Ward-1, Pune. Uttar Pradesh. PAN: AFIPA4977M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by None. Revenue by Ms. Neha Thakur – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 28/08/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/08/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: Brief facts of the case : As per the assessment order, in this case, the assessee

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

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

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

section 56(2)(x) & 50CA in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the second valuation report furnished by assessee for the purpose of land situated at Survey No. 79, 82, 63 & 86 Village-Yerur valuing

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

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

2,07,56,798/- 2012-13 3,57,72,592/- 73,07,433/- 4. The application was admitted vide order dated 245D(1) on 01.04.2014.. The application was further allowed to be proceeded with vide order u/s 245D(2C) dated 26.05.2014. During the settlement proceedings, the Settlement Commission had made addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/-, in excess

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

2,07,56,798/- 2012-13 3,57,72,592/- 73,07,433/- 4. The application was admitted vide order dated 245D(1) on 01.04.2014.. The application was further allowed to be proceeded with vide order u/s 245D(2C) dated 26.05.2014. During the settlement proceedings, the Settlement Commission had made addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/-, in excess

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

56, which is the first in this group of sections, enacts in sub-section (1) that income of every kind which is not chargeable to tax under the head "Income from other sources and subsection (2) includes in such income various items, one of which is "dividends". Dividend on shares is thus income chargeable under the head "Income from other

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

2) of section 56. 23 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) 14. We note that the seized diary based on which the amount of Rs. 1,37,73,000/- has been arrived by the search team, the Ld.CIT(A) has made a detailed discussion in para 5.4 of the impugned order wherein the Ld.CIT(A) has observed that the notings

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

56, which is\nthe first in this group of sections, enacts in sub-section (1) that income of every\nkind which is not chargeable to tax under the head \"Income from other sources\nand subsection (2) includes in such income various items, one of which is\n\"dividends\". Dividend on shares is thus income chargeable under the head\n\"Income

ABIL REALTY PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Abil Realty Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward 1(1), Pune Abil House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 Pan: Aaica8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 08-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R

House, 2 Ganesh Khind Road, Vs. Range Hill Corner, Pune – 411007 PAN: AAICA8531I (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sanket M Joshi & Mandar Joshi Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2025 Date of pronouncement : 19-03-2025 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK vs. MICO EMPLOYEES CREDIT COOP SOCIETY LTD., NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

house property. The Appellant has claimed the whole of its business income as deduction u/s 80P(2)(a)(i). 6.1. While completing assessment, the AO held that interest income from deposits with nationalised banks (Rs.1,54,21,304) was outside the purview of business income. The AO argued that such interest was earned by investment of surplus funds and hence

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

56,225/- 27,41,121/- 3.1 Further, on perusal of assessment records, it is found that there is substantial variation between consideration received or accrued and value adopted or assessed or assessable. The same difference is corroborated by the Index-II submitted with respect to the concerned sales. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had relied

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

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 of such deduction

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

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 of such deduction

REKHA KISHORE BARI,DHULE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER-NFAC, DELHI

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1667/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Rekha Kishore Bari, V The Assessing Officer- Datta Bari Bhavan, S Nfac. Opp.Rana Pratap Statute, Dhule – 424001. Pan: Abepb3597J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2020-21 Dated 19.07.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act, Dated 31/08/2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

House Building Society Ltd Vs. CIT [2010] 327 ITR 39 (Punjab & Haryana)- legal Paper book pg no. 87- 90 5.15. Your Honour's, since, sec. 56(2)(viii) r.w.s 145 (1) (erstwhile 145A(b) of the Act does not determine the year of taxability where litigation is pending; and even though above judgements pertain to Assessment Years prior to Amendment