2021 (10) TMI 511

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....handrak ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 18-11-2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-10, Pune under section 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called `the Act') in relation to the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue is aggrieved in the following terms : "On the facts and the circumstanc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r, the ld. CIT(A) relied on his decision for the assessment year 2008-09 in which three properties involved were taken by the appellant on rent, out of which two properties belonged to M.N. Navale (Bigger HUF) and it was held that HUF was not a prohibited person within the meaning of section 13(3) and as such the AO was directed to delete the addition. While passing the order for the current year,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....received was used for the benefit of persons referred to in section 13(1)(c), was not correct which needed to be rectified. The ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order observing that the two properties which were subject matter of appeal were taken on rent that actually belonged to M.N. Navale (Bigger HUF) and not M.N. Navale in the individual capacity and further that the Bigger HUF was not a specif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....10 under consideration, the Revenue raised ground no.2 reading that "the ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the provisions of section 13(1)(c) r.w.s.13(3) of the I.T. Act,1961 are not attracted." While dealing with this ground, the Tribunal in para no.37 observed that "similarly, issues raised by the Revneue are also identical to the issues raised in A.Y. 2007-08 and our decision shall apply mut....