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'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

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'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI , PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 ,PUNE, PUNE vs. AMITKUMAR GAJENDRAKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. VASUNDHARA APPORVA PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

DEPUTY COMMISSONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE -7 , PUNE , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. SHRUTI ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

ARIHANT PATNI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -7, , PUNE vs. ARIHANT PATNI,, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE - 7, PUNE, PUNE vs. ASHOKKUMAR SOBHAGMAL, PATNI

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ,CIRCLE - 7 , PUNE, PUNE vs. APOORVA ASHOKKUMAR PATNI, PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

63,510/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment 4 was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(5), Pune (‘the Assessing Officer’) vide order dated 19.11.2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) at total income of Rs.5,72,16,757/-. While doing so, the Assessing Officer had brought

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

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

section 23(1) of the Act which has remained to be considered by the A.O. while computing the income under the head 'Income from House Property'.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his returns for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 on 16.10.2016 and 30.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.1,57,63

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

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

section 23(1) of the Act which has remained to be considered by the A.O. while computing the income under the head 'Income from House Property'.” 3. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed his returns for AYs 2016-17 and 2017-18 on 16.10.2016 and 30.10.2017 declaring income of Rs.1,57,63

HINDUMAL BALMUKUND INVESTMENT CO.PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-1,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 562/Pun/2019 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Hindumal Balmukund Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. 2Nd Floor, Lohia Jain House, Bhandarkar Road, Pune-411 004 Pan : Aaach4226Q .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-1, Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent

house property which was already considered under the head Income from Business and vice versa. As a sequel, the claim u/s 4 A.Y.2014-15 80IA(4) of Rs.7,64,02,294/- was corrected to Rs.4,44,39,344/- in the revised computation. 4. The AO, after considering the revised computation which reflected Gross Total Income at Rs.4

ANIL HANUMANT CHOUDHARI,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 8(3) PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Section 54F reads as under :- "Ownership Criteria: At the time of transferring the original asset, the taxpayer should not own more than one residential house (excluding the new one). The exemption is revoked if the taxpayer purchases any other residential house within two years or constructs one within three years of the transfer". 4 ITA No.406/PUN/2025

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

Housing Projects Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 taxmann.com 587 (Delhi) and also the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Goel Eisha Capitals Vs. PCIT (central), Pune in ITA No.1006/PUN/2024 dated 07.04.2025. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR vehemently argued supported the order of ld. PCIT. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 23, the said amount ought to be reduced from the gross rent to arrive at the annual value. The AO opined that the standard deduction of 30% allowed u/s. 24 is for all expenses including maintenance of property, no separate deduction can be allowed for any other expense, thereby, he disallowed security charges and garden maintenance and added

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

Section 23, the said amount ought to be reduced from the gross rent to arrive at the annual value. The AO opined that the standard deduction of 30% allowed u/s. 24 is for all expenses including maintenance of property, no separate deduction can be allowed for any other expense, thereby, he disallowed security charges and garden maintenance and added