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.

House Property'. 8. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction of maintenance expenses of Rs.50,39,563/- against the maintenance charges received from the tenants. 9. The Ld. CIT(A)) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the disallowance

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RAMAKANT RAJARAM BODKE,, PUNE

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

79,319/- after claiming deduction of Rs.38,11,000/- u/s. 54B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The assessee was co-sharer of land admeasuring 1H 13R comprising in Gut No.239, Village: Gahunje, Taluka- Maval, Dist.- Pune. After sale of said land, the assessee invested part of his share of sale consideration towards purchase

VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

property i.e. builders. The housing project undertaken by the assessee was approved by the competent authority and accordingly, assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act of 100% of the profit from the housing project. We noted that Chapter XII BA i.e. special provisions relating to certain persons other than a company was introduced by the Finance

M/S. VIKRAM DEVELOPERS & PROMOTERS,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2795 & 2796/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. Vikram Developers & Promoters, 19, Shrikrishna Heights, Ganeshkhind Road, Shivaji Nagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aagfv4298R बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Central Circle-2(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kishor Phadke Revenue By : Shri Milind Chahure सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 14.11.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Two Appeals Under Consideration Filed By The Assessee Against The Common Orders Of The Cit(A)-12, Pune Dated 08.09.2016 For The Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14 Respectively. Preliminary Issue - Condonation Of Delay – Both Appeals 2. Before Us, At The Outset, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Both The Appeals Could Not Be Filed In Time & The Said Appeals Were Filed With The Delay Of 01 Day. In This Regard, Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Submitted That The Delay Is Unintentional & Prayed For Condoning The Same. 3. After Hearing Both The Sides & Considering The Smallness Of Delay In Filing Of Both The Appeals, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals Of The Assessee In The Following Paragraphs. 4. The Facts & Grounds Are Common In Both The Appeals, Therefore, Both The Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Composite Order. Accordingly, The Appeal-Wise Adjudication Is Taken Up In The Following Paragraphs.

property i.e. builders. The housing project undertaken by the assessee was approved by the competent authority and accordingly, assessee claimed deduction under section 80IB of the Act of 100% of the profit from the housing project. We noted that Chapter XII BA i.e. special provisions relating to certain persons other than a company was introduced by the Finance

SHEELA DEEPAK GUNDECHA,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

property has been referred to the valuation officer, The AO is directed to adopt the figures in accordance with the valuation report of the VO. The AO is, directed to allow deduction on account of indexed cost of acquisition based on the valuation report by the valuation officer after duly affording opportunity to the appellant of being heard regarding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

79 taxmann.com 398 and CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 172. Therefore, in our view, the objection raised by the assessee in the appeal is allowed. 12. In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.680/PUN/2015 – A.Y. 2008-09 (By Revenue) 13. Revenue raised the following grounds : “1. On the facts and circumstances

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

79 taxmann.com 398 and CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 172. Therefore, in our view, the objection raised by the assessee in the appeal is allowed. 12. In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.680/PUN/2015 – A.Y. 2008-09 (By Revenue) 13. Revenue raised the following grounds : “1. On the facts and circumstances

SHIVAJI BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 680 To 682/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 To 2010-11

79 taxmann.com 398 and CIT v. Murli Agro Products Ltd. 49 taxmann.com 172. Therefore, in our view, the objection raised by the assessee in the appeal is allowed. 12. In the result, the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.680/PUN/2015 – A.Y. 2008-09 (By Revenue) 13. Revenue raised the following grounds : “1. On the facts and circumstances

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. MHARASHTRA ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

house property the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted addition to 15% of the income declared under the said head. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) enhanced the income by Rs.2,91,79,690/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal

M/S. MHARASHTRA ERECTORS PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

house property the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) restricted addition to 15% of the income declared under the said head. Further, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) enhanced the income by Rs.2,91,79,690/- in respect of Short Term Capital Gain. Against the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) both, the assessee and the Revenue are in appeal

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,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.467/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandi, S Kalanagar, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2023 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 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 11.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

section 148 of the Act on 19.03.2020, wherein Assessee disclosing his total income of Rs.6,89,400/- i.e. the claim of deduction under Chapter-VIA to Rs.1,68,000/- in place of Rs.3,82,120/- claimed in original return and further claimed loss under the head House Property to the extent of (-) Rs.1,79

ARJUN BHAGARAM PARMAR,RATNAGIRI vs. WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as per terms indicated herein above

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.115/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arjun Bhagaram Parmar, Vs Ward-1, Room No. 11, Swar Vihar, Ratnagiri Garah Sankulan Sarang, Khend, Tal-Chiplun, Ratnagiri-415605 Maharashtra Pan-Ayqpm4825M Appellant Respondent

house property at Rs. 79,278/- and deduction under Chapter VIA at Rs. 37,407/-. But all these details remained to be submitted due to non filing of income tax return. Ld. AO has observed that the assessee has not filed return of income. I also observe that during the assessment proceedings assessee has successfully demonstrated that he is engaged

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,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.466/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandir, S Kalanagar, Indiara Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023 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 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 12.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

House Property to the extent of (-) Rs.2,00,000/-. Also, the assessee disclosed income under the head Salaries of Rs.7,79,226/- as against Rs.6,32,280/- disclosed in the Original Return of Income. 2.4 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) completed the re-opened assessment proceedings by passing an order under section

M/S. NATIONAL TEMPO HOUSE vs. JOINT 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.1215/Pun/2016 Block Period : 1987-88 To 1997-98

79,138/- by applying GP rate of 20%. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee stressed that it is case of addition on the basis of estimation and where the levy of penalty under section 158BFA(2) of the Act was discretionary, then the authorities below had the authority to drop penalty proceedings. In this regard, first reliance was placed

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

79,043/-. Assessee had claimed amount of Rs.49,68,975/- as exempt income on account of re-investment for purchase of residential property for Rs.61,91,000/-. Assessee had also claimed deduction of Rs.21,10,068/- on account of deposits of Rs.26,50,000/- in a specified bank account. The assessee was asked to prove the claim of construction

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

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

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 56(2)(x) & 50CA in accordance with the Rule 11U & 11UA of Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) erred in accepting the second valuation report furnished by assessee for the purpose of land situated at Survey No. 79, 82, 63 & 86 Village-Yerur valuing

CHANDRAKANT GULABRAO BORDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 13(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

79 CCH 0204 (Guj. High Court) 5. CIT Vs. Batra (2008) 76 CCH 0918 (Delhi High Court) 6. DIT Vs. M/s. S.R.M.B. Diary Farming (P) Ltd. (Supreme Court) 7. ACIT Vs. Sameer Sudhakar Dighe – ITA No.1327/Mum/2016, dated 13-04-2018 8. CIT Vs. M.Balamuralikrishna 171 ITR 447 (Mad.) 9. G.R. Vishwanath Vs. ITO 29 ITD 142 (Bangalore) 10. Kapil

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

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

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks