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

section requires is that expenses must have been incurred for the purpose of earning income to be eligible to claim the same against the said income. There is no question of interpreting the term “income as profits”. The moment expenditure has been incurred for earning income, the expenditure incurred for the same qualifies for deduction u/s.54

MICHELLE Y.POONAWALLA,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, 4 ,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

section 27 of the Act. Further, the ld. AR drew our attention to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Podar Cement (P.) Ltd. reported in 92 Taxman 541 (SC) and argued that the Hon’ble Supreme Court clarified the meaning of owner of house property

M/S WATERFRONT HOUSING & HOSPITALITY PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-12(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Waterfront Housing & Vs. Ito, Ward-12(2), Pune. Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., 3Rd Floor, Rajyog Creations Apts, Anand Park, Aundh, Pune- 411007. Pan : Aaacw9020F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Revenue By : Shri A. K. Mahala Date Of Hearing : 14.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.11.2023 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Nfac’] Dated 21.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Disallowance Of Deduction U/S 48(Ii) Of The Income Tax Act From The Long Term Capital Gains, In Respect Of The Indexed Cost Of Interest Paid For The Acquisition Of The House Property Sold By The Assessee, Made By The Assessing Officer By Travelling Beyond The Issue For Which This Case Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under Cass Is Without Jurisdiction. 2. The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Eared Is Not Allowing The Deduction Of Rs.24,38,826/- U/S 48(Ii) From The Long Term

house property. (a) The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly disallowed the interest paid for acquisition of above said properties/flats and claimed as indexed cost of improvement and therefore the said disallowances made by Assessing Officer is not justified and same may please be allowed as indexed cost of improvement and grant the deduction. (b) The Ld. Assessing Officer has wrongly

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

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

92, Tathwade, Pune – 411033 PAN : AABCM1972R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 9, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 30-10-2018 A.Y. 2008-09 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : This cross appeals

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

92, Tathwade, Pune – 411033 PAN : AABCM1972R .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 9, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri C.H. Naniwadekar Revenue by : Shri Pankaj Garg सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 02-08-2018 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 30-10-2018 A.Y. 2008-09 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : This cross appeals

KAILAS KANTILAL KOTHARI,NASHIK vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(1)(a) of the Act granted to the assessee prior to making adjustments. On merits, it is contended that rental income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been again added in the hands of the assessee for the self-occupied property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal issue

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the hands of both assessees. Apart from above, Assessing Officer held that expenditure in respect of above said flats in the nature of Electricity and Telephone expenses paid by the company also constitute perquisite in the hands of both assessees. The Assessing Officer

MANISH I. JAIN vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the hands of both assessees. Apart from above, Assessing Officer held that expenditure in respect of above said flats in the nature of Electricity and Telephone expenses paid by the company also constitute perquisite in the hands of both assessees. The Assessing Officer

ISHWARLAL S. LALWANI (JAIN) vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

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

section 2(24)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in the hands of both assessees. Apart from above, Assessing Officer held that expenditure in respect of above said flats in the nature of Electricity and Telephone expenses paid by the company also constitute perquisite in the hands of both assessees. The Assessing Officer

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

House at NDA Road, Warje, Pune are hereby deleted and the additions in respect of the remaining properties are confirmed. For the same reasons, the applicability of S.13(1)(c) in the appellant's case is hereby upheld since a part of the income of the institution was used during the PY for the benefit of a person referred

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

House at NDA Road, Warje, Pune are hereby deleted and the additions in respect of the remaining properties are confirmed. For the same reasons, the applicability of S.13(1)(c) in the appellant's case is hereby upheld since a part of the income of the institution was used during the PY for the benefit of a person referred

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SINHAGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,, PUNE

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

House at NDA Road, Warje, Pune are hereby deleted and the additions in respect of the remaining properties are confirmed. For the same reasons, the applicability of S.13(1)(c) in the appellant's case is hereby upheld since a part of the income of the institution was used during the PY for the benefit of a person referred

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

House at NDA Road, Warje, Pune are hereby deleted and the additions in respect of the remaining properties are confirmed. For the same reasons, the applicability of S.13(1)(c) in the appellant's case is hereby upheld since a part of the income of the institution was used during the PY for the benefit of a person referred

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

House at NDA Road, Warje, Pune are hereby deleted and the additions in respect of the remaining properties are confirmed. For the same reasons, the applicability of S.13(1)(c) in the appellant's case is hereby upheld since a part of the income of the institution was used during the PY for the benefit of a person referred

SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, additional ground No.3 by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 2075 To 2077 & 2110/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08 To 2009-10 Sinhgad Technical Education Society, S. No. 44/1, Vadgaon ( Budruk), Off. Sinhagad Road, Pune-411 041. Pan : Aabts9900Q. …....अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S.

House at NDA Road, Warje, Pune are hereby deleted and the additions in respect of the remaining properties are confirmed. For the same reasons, the applicability of S.13(1)(c) in the appellant's case is hereby upheld since a part of the income of the institution was used during the PY for the benefit of a person referred

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, NASHIK, NASHIK

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1249 To 1252/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

section 68 of the Act, which were taxed by the AO as business profit, particularly when no notice u/s. 251(2) was issued by the CIT(A). 5. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.7