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

Housing Loan for Flat No.7 Shivanjali Near Mahadev Temple, Indra Nagae, Chinchwad, Pune-411033 against which the Assessee has claimed deduction u/s.24(b) claiming this impugned flat as self-occupied property. In these facts and circumstances of the case, the deduction of Rs.55,292/- is upheld. Accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Assessee is dismissed. Ground No.2 : 11. This Ground relates

ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. RAJENDRA RASIKLAL SHAH, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1015/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2013-14

64,330/-. Subsequently, based on the information received that the assessee sold an immovable property bearing Survey.No.156/2B, Mouje, Nashik, District Nashik admeasuring 3H 2R for a consideration of Rs.15.30 crore and that the assessee has not shown the income from sale of immovable property in its income- tax return, notice u/s.148 of the act was issued and reassessment proceedings

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

64,000/- to the total income of the assessee on account of deemed rent u/s. 23(4) of the Act. The CIT(A) confirmed the same. 4. The ld. AR, Shri Suhas Bora drew our attention to the order of this Tribunal in the case of Pride and Expert Properties Private Limited in ITA No. 860/PUN/2022

ARJUN BHAGARAM PARMAR,RATNAGIRI vs. WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.115/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arjun Bhagaram Parmar, Vs Ward-1, Room No. 11, Swar Vihar, Ratnagiri Garah Sankulan Sarang, Khend, Tal-Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpm4825M Appellant Respondent

64,159/-, loss from house property at Rs. 79,278/- and deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs. 37,407/-. But all these details remained to be submitted due to non filing of income tax return. Ld. AO has observed that the assessee has not filed return of income. I also observe that during the assessment proceedings assessee has successfully demonstrated

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

64 Aares land was purchased by Smt. Barpayidevi Jaikishan Agarwal and the Satav family continue to have the possessory rights. d) By a Joint Development Agreement dated 15-09-2010 and 27-01-2011, the Agarwal family had entered into an agreement for development of the said land with Agarwal Gupta Associates without the consent of the Satav family

DEEPAK HARI KOTALWAR HUF,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD1, NANDED

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

64,393/- was upheld. 6. Aggrieved with such order of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. Although the ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued for allowability of deduction u/s.54F on account of investment in construction of house

SHARADA ELECTORS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PCIT, PUNE-3, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

64,73,532/- on account of advance for purchase of property:- It is submitted by the assessee that it is in the business of development of properties and it is common to give advance for purchase of property. It is also submitted that all the advances were given through account payee cheques or RTGS/NEFT. It has further been submitted that

EATON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

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

64,37,67,020/- which was lateron revised on 08.03.2019 declaring total income of Rs.4,19,43,91,420/-. The case of the assessee was selected for Complete Scrutiny through CASS for verification of the following issues : i. Claim of “Any other amount allowable as deduction” in Schedule BP. ii. Depreciation Claim iii. Deduction and deposit of TDS iv. Deduction

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

64] Therefore, as the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has interpreted the decisions in Shyam Sunder Khandelwal (supra) and VSL Mining Company Private Limited (supra) as above, it would be incorrect for a lower forum to hold another view. 3.10 It is pertinent to mention here that Hon. Madras High Court in Saloni Prakash Kumar v. ITO [2023] 155 taxmann.com

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

64,010/- paid by the assessee for 6 purchase of new land. The claim u/s 54B of the Act has been rejected by Ld. CIT(A) solely on the ground that the property has been registered in the name of assessee on 01.10.2021 which is beyond the period of two years from the date of transfer. It is cited before

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JALGOAN vs. SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI, JALGAON

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

64,586/- u/s 271E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, levied on account of the assessee had contravened the provision of 2 ITA No.269/PUN/2024 & CO No. 15/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 section 269T by repaying of loan other than the account payee or demand draft. Therefore, assessee was liable to pay penalty under section 271E

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHRI. BALAJI RAMCHANDRA ANDE, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the Revenue dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

house property, profits and gains of business or profession, or capital gains, nor 8 ITA.No.625/PUN./2024 is it income from other sources' because the provisions of sections 69, 69A, 698, and 69C treat unexplained investments, unexplained money, bullion, etc., and unexplained expenditure as deemed income where the nature and source of investment, acquisition or expenditure, as the case

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (OSD), PUNE vs. SURESH KUMAR LAKHOTIA , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.24/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2018-19 Vs Suresh Kumar Lakhotia, The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Osd), 3A/3B, Archies Court Pune. Shankersheth Road, Ghorpade Peth, Pune – 411042. Pune – 411042. Pan: Aazpl4337L Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By Shri Devdatta Mainkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajay Keshari – Dr Date Of Hearing 14/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/09/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 09.11.2023 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Erred In Accepting The Assessee'S Contention That The Additional Capital Introduced In Ay 2018- 19 Represents Accumulated Suresh Kumar Lakhotia [R]

house property income, capital gains and income from other sources. 2. In the return of income, the Appellant merged personal balance sheet with balance sheet of proprietary concern, which resulted in adding opening capital of Rs. 19.04 crores and corresponding personal assets in the balance sheet. 3. The learned AO considers this treatment as introduction of capital and issued show

SITARAM R. RAHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE. WARD 3, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.650/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane, The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.3, Oscar Pride, Date V Ward-3, Ahmednagar. Colony, Behind Atharva S Mangal Karyalaya, Savarkar Nagar, Gangapur Road, Nashik – 422013. Pan: Afapr 3796 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 26/04/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2023 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(Appeals)-2, Pune Dated 22.01.2020 Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 22.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: Shri Sitaram Raosaheb Rahane [A]

64,98,000/- made by the assessee towards purchase of the said land vide registered agreement dated 13.04.2016 without appreciating that the benefit of section 5413 was available in respect of any land purchased for being used for agricultural purposes and hence, the said disallowance was not warranted in law. 5. The learned CTT(A) failed to appreciate that

KIRAN BABURAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, PMT BUILDING SWARGAT

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2023-24 Shri Kiran Baburao Jadhav Dcit, Swargate, Pune Flat No.4, Shubhamkar Apts, Lane Vs. No.14, Bhandarkar Road, Pune – 411004 Pan: Addpj5634M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Gajanan N Kondhare Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 28-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 11-08-2025 O R D E R

house property, capital gain and income from other sources. He filed his return of income on 31.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.4,14,23,740/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised his return of income on 31.01.2024 by declaring additional income of Rs.97,06,000/- and paid tax on the above amounting to Rs.33,66,040/-. The facts leading to the above

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of\ndisallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of\nunexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act.\n8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on\nmerit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. ASHISH OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. OMPRAKASH ASARAM MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, JALNA vs. PRAMILA OMPRAKASH MANTRI, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

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

64,35,230/- by making addition of Rs.1,44,35,387/- on account of disallowance of capital gain u/s 10(38) of the Act and Rs.3,20,614/- on account of unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. 8. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of reopening of assessment