Pune News: Widow Of Ex-Army Officer Appeals For Property Tax Exemption After PMC Halts Benefit For 3 Years
Pune’s Property Boom Continues: ₹33,000 Cr Homes Sold In H1 2025, Says CREDAI-CRE Matrix
Pune: Ashwini Kanetkar, widow of Lt Colonel Arun N Kanetkar, a former officer of the Indian Army, has written to the authorities seeking property tax exemption as per the Maharashtra State Government’s order for widows of ex-servicemen.
In her letter addressed to Madhav Jagtap, head, tax and tax assessment department, Kanetkar highlighted that in 2016, the Maharashtra Urban Development Department issued a directive granting property tax exemptions for widows of ex-servicemen. The exemption is applicable to properties held in the name of the widow, and Kanetkar, being eligible for the benefit, had received an eligibility certificate from the District Soldier Welfare Office, Pune, on June 28, 2016.
Following this, she had submitted the certificate to the concerned authorities, and from 2017-2018, she was granted the property tax exemption. The same exemption was applied in subsequent years, with her bills reflecting the adjusted amounts. However, she has recently received property tax bills with significantly higher amounts for the years 2022-2023, 2023-2024, and 2024-2025, despite her eligibility for the exemption.
Kanetkar has requested the authorities to review these bills, conduct a thorough inquiry, and remove any incorrect or unnecessary dues. She has urged the department to issue a corrected property tax bill for the year 2024-2025, reflecting her entitled exemption. But her requests have not made any difference in her property tax bills yet.
Her request remains pending, and she seeks immediate rectification from the concerned officials. Madhav Jagtap, head, Tax and tax assessment department, Pune Municipal Corporation assured that the issue will be looked into on priority. If the benefit was being awarded for a couple of years it should have not stopped. Another reason could be that during the GIS survey if the flat was not self occupied one the benefit may have been recalled.
