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

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

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

ARUNA SINGH ,THANE vs. ITO WARD 3(1), KALYAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

73,600/-\nRs.29,02,68,389/-\nRs.2,18,655/-\nRs.90,472/-\nRs.31,31,51,116/-\n3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who\nwithout admitting the appeal dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the\nground that the assessee has not filed the return of income as well as not\npaid an amount equal

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

houses of the managing director and other directors. In such a case, when the managing director or any other persons were found to be not in possession of any incriminating material, the question of examining them by the authorised officer during the course of search and recording any statement from them by invoking the powers under section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, BODHI TOWER vs. KUMAR BUILDERS PROJECT PUNE PRIVATE LIMITED, BUND GARDEN

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

Property Co. Ltd. v. Under Secretary (ITA-II) Department of Revenue [323 ITR 441] observed as under: - “7. In view of the foregoing, it is absolutely clear that the submissions sought to be raised before us by the learned counsel for the respondent have specifically and categorically been rejected by the Karnataka High Court and the same have been accepted

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

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

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

73,05,673/- & purchase value amounting to Rs.1,51,95,000/-) is made under the head ‘Income from Other Sources’ in the case of assessee.” 4. It is a fact that Assessee Pandurang Kashinath Bhilare along with his Wife Mrs.Sunanda Pandurang Bhilare has jointly purchased a row house from M/s.K.N.Associates vide Agreement dated 31.03.2017. We have perused the said Agreement

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

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

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

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

REHAU POLYMERS PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

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

house. It was submitted that these services pertained to the internal\nsystems and processes of the Rehau Group. It was submitted that the assessee has\nreceived various benefits by receipt of these services as without receiving such\nservices, the assessee could not have carried out its business operations\nsuccessfully in India, since Rehau India depends solely on technical support

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]

1. The learned CIT is not justified in raising penalty u/s 270A of Rajesh Ananda Sonawane [A] Rs.1,73,508/- on the ground that the assesses has furnish inaccurate particulars of Income without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses had duly

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

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