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

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

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

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

71,818/-; disallowed to the extent of Rs.2,52,50,000/; in the course of assessment dated 05.12.2022 and partly upheld in CIT(A)-NFAC’s detailed discussion as under : “5.1. Ground of Appeal No.1: The appellant objects to restricting the deduction to 50% of the Purchase cost of New Property, by the AO on the reasoning that

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

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

71,818/-; disallowed to the extent of Rs.2,52,50,000/; in the course of assessment dated 05.12.2022 and partly upheld in CIT(A)-NFAC’s detailed discussion as under : “5.1. Ground of Appeal No.1: The appellant objects to restricting the deduction to 50% of the Purchase cost of New Property, by the AO on the reasoning that

KAILAS KANTILAL KOTHARI,NASHIK vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(1)(a) of the Act granted to the assessee prior to making adjustments. On merits, it is contended that rental income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been again added in the hands of the assessee for the self-occupied property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal issue

PRAFUL RAGHUVEER CHANDAWARKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.187/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year : 2017-18

71,251/-. The disparity between the returned income and the assessed income u/s.143(1) is on account of prima-facie adjustment made based on the information contained in Form No.26AS or Form No.16A or Form No. 16 which were not included in computing the total income in the return of income. The Form No.26AS contains information that there

PRAKASH KATARIYA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2020-21

71,829/- which is mainly attributable to interest 2 expenses of Rs.46,24,948/- debited by the assessee to the Income and Expenditure Account. In support of the said claim of interest, the assessee submitted interest certificates issued by L & T Finance Home Loans. The Assessing Officer observed that L & T Finance Home Loans has issued two certificates mentioning

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

House Property\n37,800\nC\nIncome from business/profession\nas per Sch.BP of ITR\n(-)*44,70,811\nD\nAdd : Disallowances/Additions\nIncome from sale of TDR [Para 5.3] | ₹5,31,95,834\nE\nIncome from other sources\n14,20,893\nGross Total income\n5,31,83,716\nLess : Deduction under Chapter VI-\nA claimed\n1,62,538\nE\nTotal Assessed Income

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

71,523/-. We find that PNB Housing Finance Limited falls within the exception u/s.194A(4)(iii). Though the assessee has not deducted the tax on the interest paid to PNB Housing Finance Limited but in case the PNB Housing Finance Limited has offered the income in its income-tax return, then no disallowance can be made in terms of section

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

SHRIKANT HERWADE FAMILY TRUST,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(2)(1), KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property. In its application, the assessee has stated that the entire income of the assesse is distributed among all its beneficiaries whose shares are determined as per the deed of trust. No tax is payable by trust on its income except the portion of income which is not declared by any of the beneficiary. All the beneficiaries are submitted

ASHISH NIRANJAN SHAH,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX -4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.697/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ashish Niranjan Shah, The Pr.Cit-4, Pune. 39, Mantri Court, Dr.Ambedkar V Road, Next To Rto, Sangam, S Pune – 411001. Pan: Aidps 7682 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel, Irs – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 28/07/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13/10/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-4, Pune Dated26.03.2019 Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Learned Pr. Cit- 4, Pune Erred In Law & On Facts In Treating The Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Being Erroneous & Thereby Prejudicial To The Revenue U/S 263 Without Appreciating That, The Learned Ao Has Allowed Appellant'S Claim Of Business Loss Amounting To Rs.10,20,14,068/- Incurred On Account Of Default In Payment By Nsel, With Due Application Of Mind & Verification. The Learned Pr. Cit Erred In Holding That, Ao Has Not Carried Out Any Enquiry With Respect To Business Loss Claimed By The Appellant & Not Applied His Ashish Niranjan Shah [A]

71,34,117 claimed from broker (and eventually from NSEL) at page no.61; Ledger extract of Appellant in the books of borker M/s Leacmech Commodities Broking Pvt Ltd + Action of Appellant in joining Investors forum for claiming dues from NSEL at page no.63 and further submitted the Submission of the Appellant before learned AO giving note on Business Loss + giving

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

section 143(3). In large number of cases we find that the above distinction is not kept in mind by the Assessing Officer. It is for this reason that we have spelt out the difference between the regular assessment and the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B.” 22. Ld. Counsel for the assessee has also referred to following decisions wherein

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

71 Taxmann.com 152 has held that by way of\namendment introduced by Finance Act, 2010 with effect from\n01.06.2010, Commissioner is empowered to cancel registration\ngranted to assessee-trust under section 12A with retrospective\neffect subject to conditions specified in section 12AA(3).\n7.4.2 Assessee had questioned that registration granted u/s 12A cannot\nbe cancelled u/s 12AB

JEWEL HOUSING,MUMBAI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

house property’ u/s 23(4) of the Act by recording as under: “4.3 On the above facts and in law, the explanation furnished by the Assessee is not tenable, hence, not acceptable. Therefore, this office made enquiries to ascertain the fair market rent of the aforesaid stock-in-trade of 11 flats. Considering the size of flats and market enquiries

M/S KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2014-15

Properties Pvt. Ltd. merged with Kolte Patil Developers Ltd.) Vs. 2nd Floor, City Point, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001 PAN: AAACK7310G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkende Date of hearing : 06-08-2024 Date of pronouncement : 12-08-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed

SHRIKANT ANANTRAO ZORI,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) AURANGABAD , AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

house property\" of Rs.1,44,045/- and income from other\nsources of Rs.22,420/-. The assessee claimed deduction of Rs.2,05,753/-\nunder various sections of Chapter-VIA and also claimed tax relief of\nRs.6,57,914/- u/s 89(1) of the Act. During the course of assessment\nproceedings, the assessee submitted that the management of Pfizer\nHealthcare India Private