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

77,29,880/- 53,88,920/- 2011-12 6,81,83,870/- 2,07,56,798/- 2012-13 3,57,72,592/- 73,07,433/- 4. The application was admitted vide order dated 245D(1) on 01.04.2014.. The application was further allowed to be proceeded with vide order u/s 245D(2C) dated 26.05.2014. During the settlement proceedings, the Settlement

ALNESH AKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

house property. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the revised computation of income the assessee has shown income from other sources at Rs.4,95,77,687/- which includes the income of Rs.3,44,55,942/- received from various firms in which the assessee has made investments as loan. He noted that the assessee has also shown receipt

ALNESH MOHAMADAKIL SOMJI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

house property. 5. The Assessing Officer further noted that in the revised computation of income the assessee has shown income from other sources at Rs.4,95,77,687/- which includes the income of Rs.3,44,55,942/- received from various firms in which the assessee has made investments as loan. He noted that the assessee has also shown receipt

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

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.

77,20,760/- as Rent received from Matrix as Income from House Property and AO also treated it as Income from House Property, but the Ld.CIT(A) held it as Business Income. 10.3 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has assessed income as Capital Gain. However, the ld.CIT(A) treated the same income

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.

77,20,760/- as Rent received from Matrix as Income from House Property and AO also treated it as Income from House Property, but the Ld.CIT(A) held it as Business Income. 10.3 The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has assessed income as Capital Gain. However, the ld.CIT(A) treated the same income

M/S. KOLTE PATIL DEVELOPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property is justified, the assessee submits that the deduction u/s 24 and municipal taxes may be allowed to the assessee while computing the annual value of the various units.” 3. Before us, at the outset, Ld.A.R. submitted that ground Nos.1 to 7 are inter-connected and are with respect to disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and ground Nos.8

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

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 A/c Hence, source of cash deposit was as explained above. Hence, addition of Rs.14

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTRI,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

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

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

SUNIL RAMNARAYAN MANTIR,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for both the AYs 206-17

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

house property’. Accordingly, the Ld. AO completed the assessment for AY 2016- 17 on 26.12.2018 and for AY 2017-18 on 15.12.2019 on total income of Rs.2,15,53,035/- and Rs.96,15,704/- u/s 143(3) of the Act including therein the impugned addition of Rs.52,83,945/-, respectively. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before

SHREE GARUDA PLANT PRODUCTS LTD,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.492/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Garuda Plant Products The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1(2), Nashik. B-26, Additional Midc Area, Ambad, Nashik. Pan: Aaacg 0563 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nishint Gandhi – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 14/10/2022 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)-1, Nashik For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 19.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.12.2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1.In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Nashik ["The Cit (A)" For Short] Erred In Confirming The Order Of The Learned Income Tax Officer - 1 (2), Nashik, ["The Ao" For Short] Which Was Passed In Violation Of Principles Of Natural Justice Without Affording A Proper Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Appellant. 2. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Action Of The Ao In Invoking Section 14A R.W.R. 8D Of The Act, Whereby A Disallowance Of Rs.12,81,831/- Was Made In The Hands Of The Appellant.

House Property. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in making an addition of Rs.6,86,813/- to the rent income of Rs.10,18,051/- offered by the Appellant and treating the same as taxable income of the Appellant without appreciating the fact that certain amount of rent was unrealized and therefore

KHINVASARA CHAVAN,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Khinvasara Chavan Acit, Circle – 5, Pune Shop No.1 & 2, Vijay Apartments, Vs. 22, Mukund Nagar, Pune – 411037 Pan: Aacfk3473H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rohan R Potdar Department By : Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 30-03-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 30-03-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

77,94,590/-. 4. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 5. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 3 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred, both on facts

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

house properties. He accordingly worked out the long term capital gain at Rs.69,47,370/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who upheld the order of AO by holding as under : Ground No.1: In this ground the appellant challenged the “4.1 reference to the District Valuation Officer by the AO on the ground

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

77,079/-. No explanation nor any valid reason for drastic fall in returned income has been offered by the assessee company. 3.3. A show-cause notice was issued to the assessee on 11.03.2019 as to why the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 cannot be set aside u/s.263 of the Act. In response to the said show cause notice

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

77,385/- and Rs.2,20,52,278/- assessment year wise, respectively. It’s next substantive grievance in both these assessment years seeks to delete security and gardening expenses disallowance of Rs.2,30,63,890/- and Rs.1,44,37,939/-; appeal wise, respectively. 3. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that these twin

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -14, PUNE

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 523 & 524/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17

77,385/- and Rs.2,20,52,278/- assessment year wise, respectively. It’s next substantive grievance in both these assessment years seeks to delete security and gardening expenses disallowance of Rs.2,30,63,890/- and Rs.1,44,37,939/-; appeal wise, respectively. 3. We note at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that these twin

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

property be allowed. Just and proper relief be granted to the assessee in this respect. 5) Without prejudice to the above legal Grounds of Appeal learned assessing officer has erred in appreciating the fact that the cash deposits of Rs.11323000/- in the bank account is the cash received from customers and is included in the audited sales of his proprietorship

PRITI PARAG AGARWAL,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(5), PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteassessment Year : 2013-14 Priti Parag Agarwal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 2/23, Gitanjali Kunj, Ward-7(5), Pune Dr. Ambedkar Road, Pune 411 004 Pan : Acrpm4555D Appellant Respondent

house within one year before or two year after the date of sale of Wadgaonseri property. In the instant case, the appellant sold the Wadgaonseri property (original Asset) on 27/02/2013 and bought the new asset (Viman Nagar) on 14/12/2011. The appellant would have been eligible for deduction u/s 54(1) if the new asset was purchased not before 27/02/2012. Further

MASTERS REALTY PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(4),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 72 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4. Shri Rajesh Gawali representing the Department vehemently supported the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. DR to further strengthen his submissions relied on following decisions : i. Devi Electronics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, 77 taxmann.com 259 (Bombay); ii. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Lavish Apartment

SEMPERTRANS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ROHA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

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

77,353 under Section\n234C of the Act.\n22. The Appellant prays that the charging of interest under\nSections 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act, is erroneous, unwarranted\nand be deleted.\nThe Appellant prays that the additions made by the Ld. TPO/Ld.\nAO under the directions of the Hon'ble DRP be deleted and\nconsequential relief be granted.\nThe Appellant