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

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 to business income, is enhancement in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is also a fact that no opportunity wasgiven to the assessee before such enhancement. This failure to issue show cause goes to the root of the issue of powers of CIT(A) of enhancement. Therefore, for the reasons discussed ,respectfully following the ITAT

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.

house property to business income, is enhancement in the facts and circumstances of this case and it is also a fact that no opportunity wasgiven to the assessee before such enhancement. This failure to issue show cause goes to the root of the issue of powers of CIT(A) of enhancement. Therefore, for the reasons discussed ,respectfully following the ITAT

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

ATUL JAIPRAKASH GOEL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.474/Pun/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11

house property’. This ground is, therefore, allowed. 6. The only other ground which survives for consideration is the confirmation of disallowance of Rs.2,01,816/- made by the AO u/.s.14A of the Act. 7. The facts of this ground are that the assessee was in receipt of certain exempt income. No disallowance u/s.14A of the Act was offered. On being

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

house property. The Appellant has adopted the municipal valuation as the NAV, however, the learned AO stated that according to the law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, the Appellant’s case falls under section 23(1)(a) according to which, ALV should be the sum for which, the property might reasonable be expected to let from year

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

house property. The Appellant has adopted the municipal valuation as the NAV, however, the learned AO stated that according to the law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, the Appellant’s case falls under section 23(1)(a) according to which, ALV should be the sum for which, the property might reasonable be expected to let from year

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

house property. The Appellant has adopted the municipal valuation as the NAV, however, the learned AO stated that according to the law, as amended by the Finance Act, 2002, the Appellant’s case falls under section 23(1)(a) according to which, ALV should be the sum for which, the property might reasonable be expected to let from year

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.549 & 550/Pun/2016 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 वष"

house R&D facility y/s.35(2AB) , i.e. before 03-08-2010. b. in not allowing the weighted deduction on expenditure incurred for clinical trials amounting to Rs.5,45,49,486/-. 6. in confirming the disallowance of ‘demat charges’ amounting to Rs.4,28,524/- made by the Assessing Officer. 7. in upholding the disallowance of purchases of Rs.61,172/- by treating

SANDEEP OMPRAKASH KOYATE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1536/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13

property, which is self occupied by the assessee. In the facts of the case, the assessee had acquired four independent flats. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings, was asked to explain the position and it was admitted that there were four independent flats, where the funds raised for acquiring residential house

NITIN DWARKADAS NYATI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21

section 14A of the Income Tax Act 1961 read with rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 in respect of such investments may please be restricted to only such exempt income which has been earned from such investments. 6. The appellant hereby reserves the right to raise or add any additional ground/s of appeal or delete or withdraw

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be less than the total disallowance required to have been made. By holding so held the AO has rightly invoked the methodology under Rule 8D and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO for the purpose of Section

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be less than the total disallowance required to have been made. By holding so held the AO has rightly invoked the methodology under Rule 8D and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO for the purpose of Section

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14 (5),, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be less than the total disallowance required to have been made. By holding so held the AO has rightly invoked the methodology under Rule 8D and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO for the purpose of Section

KIRLOSKAR INDUSTRIES LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

property is taken into consideration for disallowance then also disallowance under Rule 8D(2)(iii) could be less than the total disallowance required to have been made. By holding so held the AO has rightly invoked the methodology under Rule 8D and confirmed the disallowance made by the AO for the purpose of Section