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

65,24,551/- before the Settlement Commission for various years, the details of which are as under: A.Y. Income offered in return in Additional income response to notice u/s 153A offered

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

section 24 means not only the ownership of property but also getting possession simultaneously therefore, interest on borrowed money utilized for payment of compensation to the statutory tenant was allowable as deduction (if not U/sec.23) U/sec. 24 of the IT Act' 1961. c. Borrowed money was utilized for acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property

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

section 24 means not only the ownership of property but also getting possession simultaneously therefore, interest on borrowed money utilized for payment of compensation to the statutory tenant was allowable as deduction (if not U/sec.23) U/sec. 24 of the IT Act' 1961. c. Borrowed money was utilized for acquiring another capital asset i.e. tenancy rights hence, assuming income from property

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

section 54. CIT v Sh. Mahadev Balai ITA 136/2017 (Raj HC) The Hon'ble HC allowed exemption u/s 54B for investment made by the assessee in the name of his wife. 5.4. In view of the above the appellant is allowed 100% of the admissible claim of deduction u/s 54F. This ground of appeal is allowed. 5.5. Ground of Appeal

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

Section 269SS of the Act are clearly attracted in respect of the cash accepted of Rs. 1,37,73,000/- accepted by the assessee from its customers otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through bank account. Therefore a penalty of Rs. 1,37,73,000/- being imposed

SHEELA DEEPAK GUNDECHA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

65,049/-. The assessee’s claim u/s.54 of the Act was denied by the lower authorities on the ground that there were some litigations going on for the residential house purchased by the assessee and only part of the construction has been completed and no final completion certificate was received from 6 Sheela Deepak Gundecha the local authority. Section

ROHIDAS BHIKU JAMBHULKAR,HINJAWADI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CIT (A), PUNE-3, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2530/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rohidas Bhiku Jambhulkar, V The Commissioner Of At Hinjawadi, Near Ganesh S Income Tax (Appeals) Mandir, Tal.Mulshi, Cit(A), Pune – 3. Dist-Pune – 411057. Pan: Ahypj9277D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri J.G.Bhumkar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sanjay Dhivare –Addl.Cit(Dr) Through Virtual Hearing Date Of Hearing 05/02/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/02/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Manish Borad, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Year 2012-13 Dated 28.08.2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of

65,900/- was through banking channel and Rs.12,68,816/- was in cash. Also, rent of house property of Rs.1,77,800/- was also in cash. These cash amounts was deposited in cash. Also, time deposit of Rs.4,00,000/- was matured on dt. 24.10.2011 with interest on it of Rs.10,914/. Also, there was cash withdrawals from bank

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

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK 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.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 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 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 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: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

65,910/-. In this said Return filed in response to notice under section 148, assessee has not claimed any interest payment under the Satish Pandurang Pawar [A] head “Income from House Property

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK 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.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 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 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 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: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

65,910/-. In this said Return filed in response to notice under section 148, assessee has not claimed any interest payment under the Satish Pandurang Pawar [A] head “Income from House Property

VINEET PRAKASH POL,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vineet Prakash Pol, V The Acit, F-16, Midc, Ambad, S. Circle-1, Nashik. Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Abkpp4357J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated31.01.2024For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,81,195 Out Of The Total Disallowance Of Rs.30,74,834 Made By The A.O In Respect Of Interest Paid To Partnership Firms On Loans Obtained From Them Without Appreciating That The Said Disallowance Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That While

House 0 0 0 Property 3 Income under the Head PGBP 0 0 0 4 Income under the Head 26,759 0 26,759 Capital Gains (LTCG) 5 Income from Other Sources 0 0 0 -After allowing Deduction of Interest paid to Partnership Firms as per decision of CIT(A) Gross Total Income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

Housing and Area Development\nAct. Accordingly, even if the respondent contends that the land was\nacquired under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,\n1966, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act would not be applicable\nto such acquisition in view of its specific exclusion under Schedule V.\n15. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act provides for exemption from\npayment

DIMPLE RAJESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2016-17

65,610/-. The case was reopened for scrutiny and notice u/s 148 was issued on 20/03/2023. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has 3 not filed any objection against proposed addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) on purchase of immovable property. As there is difference in the computation of the SRO value of the property and the fair market value

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

65,230/- as against the returned income of Rs.12,82,228/-. 7. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, who dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. The assessee filed the appeal before the Tribunal and the Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2021 restored the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC with

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

65. Naveen Kumar Gupta Follows para 39 - Pr. CIT vs Abhisar [Delhi] ITA No. 401/2022 Buildwell (P) Ltd (2023) 454 ITR 212 (SC). dtd 20-11-2024 [168 Para 20 for the issue to be decided by the taxmann.com 574 Hon. HC. (Del)(20-11-2024)] The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has not concurred with the Rajasthan High Court

ARMED FORCES EX-OFFICERS MULTISERVICES CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICERS NFAC, PUNE

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

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

65,02,105. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in not considering the Co-operative Banks as Co-operative Societies for the purpose of this section. The learned assessing officer erred in not taking cognisance of clarification published by CBDT vide circular no. 133 of 2007 dated 09 May 2007 wherein it was stated that provision of section

MR DNYANESHWAR BABURAO KATHE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.432/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Mr. Dnyaneshwar Baburao Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Pune. Kathe, Janori Dhawa, 10Th Mail Road, Dindori, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Bbppk3199D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Krishna V. Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 13.08.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 04.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.01.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstance Of The Case & In Law The Honorable Cit(A) Has Erred & Is Not Justified In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.31,58,740/- By Treating The Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In The Saving Bank Account Of Dena Bank As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating The Fact That The Said Cash Deposited In The Bank Was Out Of Agriculture Sale Proceeds. The Appellant Prays That The Addition May Please Be Deleted.

house) yields sale of Rs.4,50,000/- per acre, per year. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that in support of agricultural land 5 holdings and production of export quality rose, tomato and wheat, 7/12 extracts were produced before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC but they were not found reliable, reason being not signed by Talati of the particular

JANI PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED,RAIGAD vs. DCIT, PANVEL, CIRCLE-PANVEL, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2015-16

House, Shastrinagar, Vs. Khopoli, Tal. Khalapur, Dist. Raigad – 410203 PAN: AAACJ7356D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : S/Shri Nikhil S Pathak and Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department by : Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 08-01-2026 Date of pronouncement : 19-01-2026 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against