M/S. COSMOPOLIS CONSTRUCTION,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee are allowed

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

loss of Rs.7,15,951/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.75,50,995/- under the head „Income from House Property‟ on account of notional rent in respect of unsold residential units held as stock-in-trade. The ld. AR pointed that the assessee was holding unsold units as stock-in-trade, which partake the character

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

properties. It belongs to Gera Group of cases. Assessee filed the return of income on 31-10-2005 for the A.Y. 2005-06 declaring Nil income by setting off of brought forward losses and claimed Rs.1,26,14,888/- to be carry forward to the next year. There was survey action u/s.133A of the Act on 24-01-2007. During

CONSTRUCTION PROTAL PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1607 & 1608/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07

properties. It belongs to Gera Group of cases. Assessee filed the return of income on 31-10-2005 for the A.Y. 2005-06 declaring Nil income by setting off of brought forward losses and claimed Rs.1,26,14,888/- to be carry forward to the next year. There was survey action u/s.133A of the Act on 24-01-2007. During

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

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

property at Rs.Nil. However, in the return filed in response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act the assessee has claimed deduction u/s 24(b) of the Act on account of interest paid on housing loan amounting to Rs.2 lakh resulting in loss of Rs.2 lakh which has been set

DEPUTU COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

set off of losses derived from speculative transactions u/s.43(5) r.w.s. 73(4) Explanation of the Act. The CIT(A)’s comprehensive detailed discussion under challenge to this effect reads as under. The CIT(A)’s comprehensive detailed discussion under challenge to this effect reads as under. ―I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions

DEPUTY COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1,, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

set off of losses derived from speculative transactions u/s.43(5) r.w.s. 73(4) Explanation of the Act. The CIT(A)’s comprehensive detailed discussion under challenge to this effect reads as under. The CIT(A)’s comprehensive detailed discussion under challenge to this effect reads as under. ―I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

Appeals are dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No. 989/Pn/2015 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

set off of losses derived from speculative transactions u/s.43(5) r.w.s. 73(4) Explanation of the Act. The CIT(A)’s comprehensive detailed discussion under challenge to this effect reads as under. The CIT(A)’s comprehensive detailed discussion under challenge to this effect reads as under. ―I have carefully considered the facts of the case and rival contentions

RADHESHAM TOTARAM NARAYANI,,NANDURBAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

house property Uss galli 5,00,000/- Total 14,74,542/- In the return, the assessee determined the current year business loss of Rs.4,15,951/- and brought forward losses of Rs.4,82,585/- for A.Y. 2009-10 and reduced the disclosed income by the said losses. Assessee reported earning of income from other sources. 4. During the assessment proceedings

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2977/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year 2013-14 Kumar Properties & Real Estate Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Private Limited, Pune Ist Floor, Kumar Capital, East Street, Camp, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaack7490H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Rajan Vora & Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Shri Vitthal Bhosale Date Of Hearing 27.04.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28-04.2021 आदेश / Order Per R.S. Syal, Vp : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A)-7, Pune On 01.09.2017 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Assailed Confirmation Of Addition Of Rs.1,47,65,688/- Towards Deemed Rental Income On Stock-In-Trade Of Unsold Flats/Bungalows Held By The Assessee, As A First Major Issue. Succinctly, The Factual Panorama Of The Case Is That The Assessee Has Been Engaged In The Business Of Development Of Properties With The Projects `Kumar Infinia’ & `Kumar Picasso’

house property' after one/two years from the end of the financial year in which the certificate of completion of construction of the property is obtained on and from the A.Y. 2018-19. Instantly, we are concerned with the assessment year 2013-14. As such, the amendment cannot apply to the year under consideration. In the absence of the applicability

VINEET PRAKASH POL,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE-1, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.302/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vineet Prakash Pol, V The Acit, F-16, Midc, Ambad, S. Circle-1, Nashik. Nashik – 422010. Maharashtra. Pan: Abkpp4357J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Vinod Pawar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 08/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/05/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commssioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated31.01.2024For The A.Y.2015-16. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Rs.13,81,195 Out Of The Total Disallowance Of Rs.30,74,834 Made By The A.O In Respect Of Interest Paid To Partnership Firms On Loans Obtained From Them Without Appreciating That The Said Disallowance Was Not Justified On Facts & In Law. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Ought To Have Appreciated That While

Set off of Current year Loss of Rs.2,00,000 under Head ‘House Property’ 2 Loss under the Head House

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]

set off of loss under the head House Property of Rs.2,00,000/- and claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs.3

M/S. MULA PRAVARA ELECTRIC CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY SSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 1776/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

set off of earlier years brought forward losses against the income reported by the assessee in this year. Eventually, the AO taxed the said sum of Rs.7,12,410/- as “income from other sources”. 4. Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed an appeal before the First Appellate Tribunal and raised various issues relating to the discontinuation of business treating

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.

set off of any loss, - (a) carried forward or depreciation from any earlier assessment year, if such loss or depreciation is attributable to any of the deductions referred to in clause (i); (b) under the head "Income from house property

MANOJ SURESH TATOOSKAR,PUNE vs. CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

house property and accordingly calculated the notional rent at Rs.44,43,100/- assessing the income at Rs.62,87,710/-. 3 Manoj Suresh Tatooskar 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but partly succeeded on the said issue as ld.CIT(A) has referred and relied on the decision of Coordinate Bench, Ahmedabad in the case of Prakash Vasantbhai Golwala

M/S. NIRMAN HOMES,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

loss account of the assessee is Rs. 3,83,92,477/-. Following the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court Vs. Ansal Housing Finance and Leading Company and Hon’ble Allahabad High 2. In this case the assessee has also filed additional grounds of appeal. The additional ground No. 1 is taken along with grounds

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI RANJIT HANMANTRAO MOHITE,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

set off of loss. It is true that the appellant being a technical person and not fully conversant with the laws certainly relied in good faith upon its consultant who was a qualified professional. The AO in the given facts of the case ought to have considered the contentions raised by the appellant regarding taxation of correct income

KARMAVEER BHAUSAHEB HIRAY NASHIK JILHA KRISHI AUDYOGIKSAHAKARI SANGH LTD. KRISHI BHAVAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NASHIK

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

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

House Property for set off of current year losses from Income from Business. 4. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

LAXMINARAYAN RAMSWARUP MANIYAR,JALGAON vs. CIRCLE-1, JALGAON, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1203/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Laxminarayan Ramswarup Vs. Acit, Circle-1, Jalgaon. Maniyar, Sitaram Ramswarup, 105, Polan Peth, Dana Bazar, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aaqpm9220L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vinay V. Kawdia Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) In The Absence Of Conditions Precedent For Invoking Provisions Of S. 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act, The Learned Cit(A), Nfac Has Erred In Confirming The Adjustment Of Rs. 8,03,196/- Made By Cpc U/S 143(1)(A)(Iii) Of The Act By Denying The Set Off Of Brought Forward Unabsorbed Depreciation Of Earlier Years Against Current Years Income.

set off of brought forward unabsorbed depreciation loss of earlier years against current years income from House property (Rs.82,085/-) and income