DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

house property of amount of Rs.31,920/- and of Rs.42,000/- hence is liable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

House No.7, Dreams Nandini, Shewalewadi Solapur Road, Manjari Farm, S.O., Pune- 412307. PAN : CLUPS7044F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Girish Ladda Revenue by Shri Arvind Desai : Date of hearing : 07.10.2024 Date of pronouncement : 26.11.2024 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.05.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 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 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in 'dew of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief Facts of the case : 2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessee filed Original Return of Income electronically on 29/06/2016 for A.Y.2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.6,31,400/-. In the original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

Housing v. CIT[2013] 38 taxmann.com 203 (Mad) (iv) Pr.CIT v. Rajkumar Gulab Badgujar [2019] 111 taxmann.com 257 (SC) (v) Paras Buildtech India (P) Ltd. v. CIT [2017] 80 taxmann.com 335 (Del) (vi) Pr.CIT v. Taneja Developers & Infrastructure Ltd. [2021] 435 ITR 122 (Del) (vii) Trident Estate (P) Ltd. v. ITO[2021] 127 taxmann.com 360 (Mum. – Trib.) (viii) Krish Infrastructure

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 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 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in 'dew of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief Facts of the case : 2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessee filed Original Return of Income electronically on 02/08/2016 for A.Y.2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.7,05,190/-. In the original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

Housing Society, Vs. Shivaji Nagar, Pune – 411005 PAN: AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department by : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of hearing : 25-06-2024 Date of pronouncement : 03-07-2024 O R D E R PER R. K. PANDA, VP : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated

KONGNOLI SARVA SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED,SANGLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SANGLI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 577/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Kongnoli Sarva Seva Society Ltd., Ap Kongnoli, Tal- Kavathe Mahankal, Dist. - Sangli – 416 418 Pan: Aabak3021D . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

House Property’ and ‘Other Sources’, by the Income Tax Officer [‘AO’ in short] by an order dt. 12/02/2016. 4.2 Pursuant to the satisfaction noted in the aforestated assessment order, the Ld. AO initiated penalty proceedings for concealment u/s 271

CHANDRASHEKHAR BAGADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandrashekhar Bagade Ito, Ward 5(1), Pune F 5, Windmill Village, Vs. Opp Ambrosiya, Paud Road, Pune – 411021 Pan: Amxpb8229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

houses in August 2012. I invested the sale proceeds in new residential property on 19/01/2013 to claim exemption u/s 54F of the Income Tax Act 1961. 2. The Assessing Officer accepted the gain as long-term capital gains but denied exemption u/s 54/54F as the new residential property could not be completed within 3 years. 3. I filed appeal before

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

Housing Income Tax Office, PMT Society, Shivajinagar, vs. Pune – 411 005 Bldg., Shankar Sheth Road, Maharashtra. Pune – 411 037. Maharashtra PAN AAHFS8598L (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Nikhil Pathak For Revenue : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing : 12.02.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13.02.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2010- 2011, arise against

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

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

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

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

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

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

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

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons

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

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nRs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons recorded/objections

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

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\n: Nil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through

SHRI DEVENDRA SWARUPCHAND SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A),, PUNE-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

penalty of Rs.3,13,946/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from rental income from house property

ANANDKUMAR GAUTAM SHINGI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2

ANANDKUMAR GAUTAM SHINGI,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.2

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

property explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 6. OBJECTION AGAINST NON-ALLOWANCE OF OTHER DEDUCTIONS CLAIMED OF Rs. 2,02.500 5.1 The Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in confirming non-allowance of other deductions claimed by the Appellant for the deduction of Rs. 2,00,000/- for interest payment on Housing Loan under