M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Reassessment proceedings were started and in these proceedings, the ITO considered twelve bogus entries ostensibly relating to hundi loans and he assessed the amount of undisclosed income at Rs. 2,45,000 by working out the "peak credit". In the appeal preferred by the assessee, the AAC, on scrutiny of the cash book, discovered ten more bogus entries totalling

TEJASHREE ATUL PATIL,PUNE vs. PR.CIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

54F for the second house property purchased on 24.05.2015 3. In this regard, an opportunity of being heard s being provided to you on 01.03.2024 at 03.00 PM. You are requested to make your submissions along with documentary evidences in support of your contention." 5. Assessee duly responded to the show cause notices and furnished the information about the purchase

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide para 3.10 to 3.11 has deliberated upon the factual aspects of the issue, which are being referred, but not being reproduced for the sake of brevity. 21. The assessee having made a wrong claim in the return of income i.e. by way of claim of deduction under section 54 on account

KARANSINGH KACHRUSINGH KAKAS (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

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

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

reassessment proceedings disallowed assessee’s claim of exemption u/s. 54B and 54F on the ground that the assessee has failed to comply with the mandatory conditions as envisaged under the aforesaid respective sections

RAJA BASHUMIYA MANIYAR,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed

reassessment proceeding\ninitiated U/Sec. 147 r.w.s.144 of the Act by the Ld.AO is without\njurisdiction and void ab initio as the impugned notice issued under\nsection 148 is time-barred as per the proviso to section 147 of the Act.\n2 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming that the assessment order\npassed by the Ld.AO U/Sec 147 rw.s.144

RAGBIRSINGH MALIKSINGH RAJPAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1100/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law : 1. The AO erred in reopening the case and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 holding that