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 and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.1

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

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

house property and decide the issue as per fact and law. We hold and direct accordingly. The first issue raised by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The second issue raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relates to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of interest of Rs.1

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

VINAYAK HANUMANTRAO GHORPADE,PUNE vs. VAISHNAVI SATISH BANKAR, PUNE

In the result, appeal in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.1438 & 1439/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years: 2019-20 & 2020-21 Vinayak Hanumantrao V Vaishnavi Satish Bankar, Ghorpade, S. Pune. F.No.7, Plot No.60/61, S.No.165/1B, Shivanjali, Near Central Circle-1(3), Pune. Mahadev Temple, Indira Nagar, Pune – 411033. Pan: Afdpg6919A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar –Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 08/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Pune-11 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2019-20 & 2020-21, Both Dated 02.05.2024 Emanating From Separate Assessment Order U/S.153A R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Both Dated 23.09.2021.For The Sake Of Convenience, These Two Appeals

property for which the said loan was taken is also not mentioned. As per the provisions of the Act, deduction for repayment of principal amount of home loan can be allowed as deduction, only if the loan is taken for acquiring a house. In this case, the appellant has neither filed the copy of loan sanction letter nor any certificate

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

KISAN RAGHUNATH NANAWARE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 329/Pun/2014 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Kisan Raghunath Nanaware, New Market Yard, At & Post Nira, Tal. Purandar, Dist. Pune. Pan : Aeupn7689E .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(3), Pune. ……""यथ" / Respondent

house property, the CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer had considered additional evidences and upheld the addition earlier made. The CIT(A) also held that the assessment order passed was not barred by limitation. 12. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 13. The Ld. AR for the assessee pointed out that the Authorities below

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 at Rs.1,13,780/- and income under presumptive taxation under section 44AD of the Act at Rs.3,96

SANJAY KAILASCHAND BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

property i.e. to the extent of ₹ 55,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer from the return of income noted that the assessee had not disclosed any details of capital gains nor declared any income in the computation of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section

RAJENDRA KANHIYALAL BHARTIYA,,JALNA vs. INCOME -TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed as indicated above

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1424/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rajendra Kanhiyalal Bhartiya, Kerosene Dealer, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Amspb4560E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Jalna आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1425/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Sanjay Kailashchand Bhartiya, Prop. Of Dainik Krushnaniti, Naya Bazar, Shola Chowk, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Jalna – 431203 …. Pan: Afnpb3190E Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward-1, Jalna

property i.e. to the extent of ₹ 55,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer from the return of income noted that the assessee had not disclosed any details of capital gains nor declared any income in the computation of income. Therefore, the Assessing Officer recorded reasons for reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issued notice under section

JAYNT VASUDEO ARADHYE,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.683/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jaynt Vasudeo Aradhye, Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Solapur. Villa No.25, Indradhanu, Laxmi Peth, Vishnu Mill Compound, Solapur- 413001. Pan : Aappa8903M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Deepak Chintaman Gadgil Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Date Of Hearing 06.08.2024 : Date Of Pronouncement : 21.10.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 07.02.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-1, Coimbatore For The Assessment Year 2022-23 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “I. The Cpc Was Not Correct Both Factually & Legally In Not Considering The Claim Of Brought Forwarded Short Term Capital Loss Of Rs 27,78,028/-. 11. Section 143(1) As It Stands On The Statute Books As On Today, Does Not Permit Either Cpc Or The Ao To Make Such Adjustments As They Are Beyond The Scope Of The Said Section.

house property” with any other head of income: (iii) by claiming the depreciation, if any, under any provision of section 32, except clause (iia) of sub-section (1) of the said section, determined in such manner as may be prescribed; and 4 (iv) without any exemption or deduction for allowances or perquisite, by whatever name called, provided under any other

SHASHIKANT BIRMAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2959/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Shri Shashikant Birmal, ‘Suryoday’, Shri Navvinayak, Sahakari Sanshta, Kothrud, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aavpb4855F Vs.

house property was claimed at ₹ 44,88,643/-. The assessee also pointed out that though the sale value was assessed as ₹ 72,72,000/- for stamp duty purpose, but the actual sale consideration should be treated at ₹ 55 lakhs as the purchaser of property paid the tenancy charges of ₹ 17 lakhs in respect of two shops to the tenant

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE vs. KALAWATI VIJAYKUMAR AGARWAL, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding the investment in the property purchased from spouse. That, accordingly, there could not be any reason to deny the Appellant's claim for exemption u/s 54F. In view of the aforesaid logic, the CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the addition made pertaining to disallowance of claim

SHRI PRAFULLA DAYARAM PIPADA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.26/Pun/2019 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Prafulla Dayaram Pipada, Vs. Ito, Ward-2, Dayaram Nagar, Manmad Road, Ahmednagar Sakuri Rahata, Ahmednagar – 423 107 Pan : Achpp8007F Appellant Respondent

96,397/-. Such negative income was adjusted against income from house property etc. The assessee could not place necessary documents before the AO, which led to the passing of the assessment order u/s.144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act’), in which deduction of interest of Rs.20,94,755/- was denied. The matter was taken

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

property and carried land developing business, held that wherein certain plots were sold and wholesale price of plots was declared though not received, then where the assessee undertook developments within six months from the date of sale, under the terms of sale deed and it estimated the said expenditure to be carried out and debited the same to books

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

property and carried land developing business, held that wherein certain plots were sold and wholesale price of plots was declared though not received, then where the assessee undertook developments within six months from the date of sale, under the terms of sale deed and it estimated the said expenditure to be carried out and debited the same to books

INCOME-TAX OFFICER vs. PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

property and carried land developing business, held that wherein certain plots were sold and wholesale price of plots was declared though not received, then where the assessee undertook developments within six months from the date of sale, under the terms of sale deed and it estimated the said expenditure to be carried out and debited the same to books

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

property and carried land developing business, held that wherein certain plots were sold and wholesale price of plots was declared though not received, then where the assessee undertook developments within six months from the date of sale, under the terms of sale deed and it estimated the said expenditure to be carried out and debited the same to books

PIMPRI CHINCHWAD NEW TOWN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed and cross objections and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.929 To 932/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2005-06 & 2008-09

property and carried land developing business, held that wherein certain plots were sold and wholesale price of plots was declared though not received, then where the assessee undertook developments within six months from the date of sale, under the terms of sale deed and it estimated the said expenditure to be carried out and debited the same to books