DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, 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

73,88,920/-, the details of which are as under: (i) Income on account of house property Rs.3,88,920/- (ii) Buffer income declared Rs.50,00,000/- (iii) Income from salary Rs.39,20,00,000/- 23. So far as the income from house property amounting to Rs.3,88,920/- is concerned, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that

YOGITA MANOJ TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. ITO 12(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2714/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Yogita Manoj Tatooskar, V The Income Tax Officer, 504, Anandban, Chs, Ashok S Ward-12(1), Pune. Path, Maharashtra – 411004. Pan: Abopt9276A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S Pathak – Ar Miss Indira R Adkil – Add.Cit(Dr) Revenue By Date Of Hearing 27/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28/01/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2012-13; Dated 28.10.2024; Emanating From Assessment Order Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 15.11.2013. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground That The Appellant Had Failed To Submit The

section 143(1) of the Act, wherein Assessee had claimed Income from House Property of Rs.1,30,752/-, but CPC enhanced it to ITA No.2714/PUN/2024 [A] Rs.9,73

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

houses totaling to Rs. 3,59,50,000/- and Rs. 1,37,73,000/- as additional amount received. 12. Now, in the instant appeal, we are only concerned with the sum of Rs. 1,37,73,000/- which the Ld.AO has observed that assessee has received the said sum in cash against the transfer of immovable properties and thus invoked

BHARAT DEWAKINANDAN AGARWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-13, PUNE., PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

section 23(1)(a) of the Act is relevant for determining the income from house property and concerns determination of the annual letting value of such property. That provision talks of "the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year." Further, the words "the sum for which the property might reasonably

PANDURANG KASHINATH BHILARE,PUNE vs. ITO, (IT) WARD 1, PUNE, PUNE

In the result the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.198/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare, V The Income Tax Rh 05, Insignia, Lane 2, S Department, Ito,(It) Pashan Sus Road, N.I.A.S.O., Ward-1, Pune. Murkutenagar(N.V.), Pune – 411045. Maharashtra. Pan: Ajxpb9871A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Assessee In Person Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade – Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2025

property by receiving consideration lesser than the stamp duty value are strictly governed by the provisions of section 43CA and the purchaser has nothing to do with this. As the violation of provisions of Section 56(2)(x)(b) of the Income-tax Act(with effect from 01/04/2017) is prima facie apparent from the copy of index-ii and provisos

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

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

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7 (1),, PUNE vs. M/S. SARSAN DEVELOPERS,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.386/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-7(1), Pune. Vs. M/S. Sarsan Developers, 14A & B, Elephinstone Stone, Opp. East Street Post Office, Camp, Pune- 411001. Pan : Abjfs4506M Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Shir Suhas P. Bora Date Of Hearing : 08.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.10.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 13.12.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Lands. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2014-15 Was Filed On 29.11.2014 Declaring Rs.Nil Income. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The Income Tax Officer

73,319/- as settlement cost to Kumar Housing Corporation Limited. In the event, the above cost may not be allowed as an expenditure towards the project, the same should be allowed to be amortised once the sale of the properties commence. The assessee has treated the above settlement cost as an expenditure, which is duly transferred to capital work

RAJESH ANANDA SONAWANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.526/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajesh Ananda Sonawane, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.19, S.No.10/85B, V Nashik. Gauri Bunglow, Abhiyanta S Nagar, Kamatwade Shiwar, Nashik – 422008. Pan: Adbps 3894 A Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri Shashank Deogadkar – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2023 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 (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 21.03.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 07.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee For Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rajesh Ananda Sonawane [A]

section 80D, 80DDE, 80G, 80GG, 80E and 80EE and also claiming of bogus house property loss i.e. payments towards interest for borrowing loan by Mr. Patil in the IT Returns filed. The ITO (Inv.), along with his report also submitted a list of cases in 3 Rajesh Ananda Sonawane [A] which Mr. Patil admittedly filed IT returns making bogus claims

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

73,16,150/- whereas the assessee company has registered the flats for a consideration of Rs.2,48,13,900/- on the basis of agreement value and therefore, the provisions of section 43CA of the Act are applicable. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC, relying on the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Rahul Constructions

SHRI VINAY BADERA,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 3, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Vinay Badera Acit, Circle 3, Pune 303, Rohan Tapovan, Sb Road, Vs. Gokhale Nagar, Pune – 411016 Pan: Abjpb1324J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.S. Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 30-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-03-2025 O R D E R

section 57(iii) of the Act, any other expenditure (not being in the nature of capital expenditure) laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of making or earning such income, is allowed as deduction against income shown as ‘Income from other sources’. He, therefore, asked the assessee to furnish the details of deductions claimed u/s 57 along

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

NILESH POPATLAL GADA,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4) , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

73 taxmann.com 68 (Mumbai Trib.)  Hon'ble Amritsar Tribunal in case of Sh. Satbir Singh Bhullar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Amritsar. (Ι.Τ.Α. No.258/Asr/2022).  Hon'ble Lucknow Tribunal in case of Income-tax Officer, Barabanki v. Kamal Kumar Mishra [2013] 33 taxmann.com 610 (Lucknow Trib.)  Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of Roopak Jain Versus

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

M/S KIRAN SANRAN ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

73,503 land exceeding 1 Hectare 6 Valuation for the purpose of payment of Stamp 78,43,443 Duty The copy of the relevant building plan and floor plan are enclosed. Your Honour may please note that the entire carpet area of the terrace terrace is not accessible as per the approved building plan to the Customer. The same

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

73,270/- on payment of tax of Rs. 11,22,233/- whereas Rs. Rs. 9,58,110/- was claimed in ITR filed vide acknowledgement No. 329297250310321. (b) Again, assessee has claimed Capital gain deduction of Rs.98,88,710/- (Rs. 76,91,783/- Rs.21,96,927/-) u/s.54F on investment of another immovable property. Again, as per reply furnished on 19/02/2022, assessee

MUSLIM EDUCATION SOCIETY,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

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

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

houses under private management or by the other ways best adapted to the wants of people according to Government rules and regulations so far as these affect a recognized or aided school. For AY 2020-21, the assessee trust filed its return of income on 28.03.2021 declaring total income at Rs. Nil and claiming exemption

KALPANA VIJAY KADAM,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 2(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.841/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Kalpana Vijay Kadam, V The Income Tax Officer, Fi 13, Janki Heights, S.No.250, S. Ward-2(2), Pune. Baner D P Road, Aundh, Pune – 411007. Maharashtra. Pan: Axzpk4350P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P. Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri Manish Mehta – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/05/2025 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)[Nfac], Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’), Dated 06.02.2025 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Erred In Passing An Ex-Parte Order Without Affording A Reasonable Opportunity To The Appellant. The Order Was Solely Based On The Observations Of The Assessing Officer (Ao) In The

housing loan along with supporting documents is submitted by the assessee in support of her claim. In absence of the explanation along with supporting documents the source of fund for purchase of immovable property of Rs 66,95,000/- remains unexplained. Therefore, the aggregate income of Rs.66,95,000/- chargeable to tax, which is more than Rs.50 lakhs and represented

ASHWINI SAHAKARI RUNGNALAYA & RESEARCH CENTER,,SOLAPUR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (EXEMPTIONS),, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 714/Pun/2018 Ashwini Sahakari Rugnalaya & Research Centre 7107/1, Plot No. 180, North Sadar Bazar, Solapur-413003. Pan: Aaaja0041K . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

House-keeping services (clause 8). (e) The relatives of the trustees of public charitable hospitals, the employees and their dependents are not to be included in the category of indigent and weaker section patients for the purpose of the said Scheme (clause 13). (emphasis supplied) 12.4.2 In context of aforestated mandates, we observed that, individually by grant of land