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

section requires is that expenses must have been incurred for the purpose of\nearning income to be eligible to claim the same against the said income. There is\nno question of interpreting the term “income as profits”. The moment expenditure\nhas been incurred for earning income, the expenditure incurred for the same\nqualifies for deduction u/s.54

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

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

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

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

ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF 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

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

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 50CA or 56(2)(x) of the Act needs to be restricted. Addition u/s 50CA of the Act of Rs. 12,92,000/- on account of sale of equity shares of MIPL (i.e. 9500 equity shares * Rs. 136 (Rs. 661- Rs. 525). The appellant has sold the equity shares below the FMV as discussed above and the FMV worked

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property and capital gain in his return for AY 2022-23. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny under CASS to verify the issue of high ratio of refund. Statutory notice(s) u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. In response thereto, the assessee submitted part detail/documents/evidences. Subsequently

AMEETSINGH AJITSINGH RAJPAL,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1705/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ameetsingh Ajitsingh Rajpal, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. 479, Eden Villa, Rasta Peth, Kasba Peth, Pune- 411011. Pan : Aaqpr3148E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora & Riya Oswal Revenue By : Smt. N. C. Shilpa Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Disallowance Of Deduction Claimed Under Section 54F Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Amounting To Rs. 92,85,214/-Solely On The Ground That The Reinvestment Was Not Made In A Residential House.

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 92,85,214/-solely on the ground that the reinvestment was not made in a residential house. 2 2. The Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. AO failed to appreciate that the appellant had invested the entire sale consideration in the property

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

92,197 24-12-2019 2,00,50,000 2015-16 72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

92,197 24-12-2019 2,00,50,000 2015-16 72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

92,197\n24-12-2019\n2,00,50,000\n2015-16\n72,591\n24-12-2019\n2,51,96,000\n2016-17\n16,254\n24-12-2019\n2,34,00,000\n2017-18\n-20,60,094\n24-12-2019\n78,00,000\n3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the\nassessee. Thereafter, to verify

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

92,197\n24-12-2019\n2,00,50,000\n2015-16\n72,591\n24-12-2019\n2,51,96,000\n2016-17\n16,254\n24-12-2019\n2,34,00,000\n2017-18\n-20,60,094\n24-12-2019\n78,00,000\n3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the\nassessee. Thereafter, to verify

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

92,197\n24-12-2019\n2,00,50,000\n2015-16\n72,591\n24-12-2019\n2,51,96,000\n2016-17\n16,254\n24-12-2019\n2,34,00,000\n2017-18\n-20,60,094\n24-12-2019\n78,00,000\n3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the\nassessee. Thereafter, to verify

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

92,197 24-12-2019 2,00,50,000 2015-16 72,591 24-12-2019 2,51,96,000 2016-17 16,254 24-12-2019 2,34,00,000 2017-18 -20,60,094 24-12-2019 78,00,000 3. During the proceedings, list of donors used to be submitted by the assessee. Thereafter, to verify

PRIDE PURPLE PROPERTIES, PUNE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

The appeal is allowed FOR STATISTCIAL

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 480/Pun/2022 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Pride Purple Properties, Pride House, 5Th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 Pan: Aaifp0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; As Against First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)-11, [‘Cit(A)’] Dt. 25/01/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’], For Assessment Year [‘Ay’] 2013-14, The Assessee Filed The Present Appeal With The Following Grounds; “1. The Order Of The Ld Cit (A) -11, Pune In The Case Is Opposed To Establish Law & The Judicial Pronouncement.

House, 5th Fl.,S.No.108/7, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 016 PAN: AAIFP0363B . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s Dy. Commissioner Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee by : Shri Suhas Bora Revenue by : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date of conclusive Hearing : 12/04/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date of Pronouncement : 12/04/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI

SANJAY NAMDEV TILEKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.382/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sanjay Namdev Tilekar, Vs. Ito, Ward-14(5), Pune. Row House No.6, Manjari Green, Manjari Stud Farm, Phase One, Pune- 412307. Pan : Ahwpt3174F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 29.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.03.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly With 281 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Along With Death Certificate Of His Wife, Praying For Condonation Of Delay Of 281 Days In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein. Ld. Dr Could Not Controvert The Averments Made In The Above Affidavit. We Are Of The Considered

92,386/-, the action is bad in law as under section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Assessing Officer cannot make the reference for valuation as on 01/04/1981. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing officer erred in restricting the claim made under section 54B to the tune