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.

Housing Development Company v. JCIT [165 ITD 76 [Bang.)] wherein the Hon’ble Tribunal had approved the reliance on the AS- 4and observed that in the case of joint development agreement, the profitability depends on the progress of the construction activity. The Hon’ble Tribunal therefore observed that the profitability of the company can be very well judged in advance

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

MARUTI G.THOPTE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

71,500/- for property at Patas, Tal. Daund and Rs.43,52,750/- for property at Nane, Tal. Maval) AO was of the view that u/s 54F deduction is allowable only in case of one house property. He accordingly granted deduction for house property constructed at Rahatani of Rs.23,62,500/- (being assessee’s 1/4th share out of Rs.94

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

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

House Property in the order u/s 143(3) dated 27.12.2009 of Income Tax Act. 3. Without prejudice the appellant pleads that License Fees Received Rs.47,52,000 was assessable under the head Profits & Gains of Business or profession of proprietary concern M/s. Malikram Builders. 4. The AO erred in disallowing claim for exemption of Rs.3,06,71

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

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

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

section 69 to 69C of the Act and held that the “deemed income” was offered during survey action is not in the nature of income taxable under the head salary, house property and business, capital gains or others. Therefore, consequential deductions u/s.70, 71

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

section 69 to 69C of the Act and held that the “deemed income” was offered during survey action is not in the nature of income taxable under the head salary, house property and business, capital gains or others. Therefore, consequential deductions u/s.70, 71

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

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

house property, repayment of loan and other related expenditure such as telephone and electricity in the hands of assessee as perquisite. 5.1 The ld. AR pointed that the flats in question are used for business purpose. The employees/officials of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. use flat at Khar, Mumbai for stay as and when they visit to Mumbai

KALU NAMDEO NANDGUDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

71,57,500/- based on Government valuation for stamp purposes. The Assessing Officer computed assessee‟s share at Rs.82,11.000/-. After allowing the benefit of indexed cost of acquisition, the Assessing Officer determined Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.74,44,044/- as taxable in the hands of assessee. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 25-03-2014, the assessee filed

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