AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

36(1)(iii), only the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession could have been claimed and it was clear that the interest in the present case was not in respect of the capital borrowed. Our attention was also invited to section 14A of the Act, which provides that

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

iii) Income from salary Rs.39,20,00,000/- 31. So far as the addition on account of rental income is concerned, we find the major portion of the same is relating to the notional income from house property which was lying vacant. In our opinion, although the addition can be made on account of notional income from the house property

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

iii) Income from salary Rs.39,20,00,000/- 31. So far as the addition on account of rental income is concerned, we find the major portion of the same is relating to the notional income from house property which was lying vacant. In our opinion, although the addition can be made on account of notional income from the house property

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

36 before the Hon'ble ITAT in support of the claim of the appellant that in view of the facts of the appellant's case as the income voluntarily declared in the Revised return of income had been accepted by the Assessing Officer and assessed as such in the assessment order, no penalty in assessee's u/s 271(1

RATANLA C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

36,825/- and unaccounted interest income Rs.82,81,598/- and initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of above additions. In First Appellate proceedings restricted the additions in respect of undisclosed advances to Rs.9,30,000/- and on account of unaccounted interest Rs.62,51,754/-. The Assessing Officer while initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) has recorded satisfaction

RATANLA C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

36,825/- and unaccounted interest income Rs.82,81,598/- and initiated penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of above additions. In First Appellate proceedings restricted the additions in respect of undisclosed advances to Rs.9,30,000/- and on account of unaccounted interest Rs.62,51,754/-. The Assessing Officer while initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) has recorded satisfaction

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

iii) M/s. D.P. Jagtap Vs. ACIT in ITA No.418/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2010-11, order dated 15.02.2017 8. He further pointed out that the Tribunal in earlier decision in the case of Nandkishor Tulsidas Katore Vs. ACIT in ITA Nos.2174 to 2180/PN/2014, relating to assessment years 2002-03 to 2008-09, vide order dated 14.12.2016 had relied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

iii) to section 271(1) inserted by the Finance Act, 1968. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . In our considered opinion, the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be straightaway applied in the present case to say that the law as on the date of the filing of return u/s 139 of the Act before the date of search is to be applied

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

iii) special surcharge and (iv) additional surcharge calculated in the manner provided in the Schedule. Read in this way the additional charges form a part of the income tax and super tax‖ 21. The Hon‘ble Supreme Court, therefore, has decided the issue in favour of the revenue and held that surcharge and additional surcharge are part of the income

SMT. VAISHALI TUSHAR JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

u/s 147 r. w.s 143(3) of the act which was in itself without following the law and the provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, though not appealed, deserves to be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to me in this respect. ITA Nos.729 to 732/PUN/2015 ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2015 3. Without prejudice to other grounds raised, on facts