DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

MRINALINI JAYANT PURANIK,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-2(2), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Mrinalini Jayant Puranik Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune Flat 14, Khagol Coop Society, Vs. S.No.38/1, Panchavati, Pashan, Pune – 411008 Pan: Almpp5163E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

270A 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 has not filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year. Since as per the TDS 2 statement the assessee has received various income to the tune of Rs.2

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

2) and 142(1) of the Act, in response to which the AR of the assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer accepted the income returned of Rs.18,74,800/-. However, he initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting of income

RAVINDRA BHAGWAN POTDAR,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD 3(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 270A(9) either in assessment order, notice or in the penalty order therefore the proceeding is liable to struck down in consequential order needs to be quashed. Your appellant craves for to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all above or any grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice

SAGAR SUBHASH WEDHANE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.191/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Sagar Subhash Wedhane, Vs. Ito, Nashik. 75, Midc, Bosch Limited, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aavpw1338A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,61,548/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Under-Reporting In Consequence Of Mis-Reporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

2) of the IT Act were issued & served, in response to which the assessee furnished his submission & the assessment was completed u/s 147/143(3) of the IT Act on 21.03.2023 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.11,14,480/-. Simultaneously penalty proceedings u/s 270A was also initiated because there was difference in assessed income & income shown in revised

AAM INDIA MANUFACTURING CORPORATION PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

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

TDS credit of INR 2,56,500 which is clearly visible in Form 26AS for the subject assessment year Initiation of penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 270A

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. CUMMINS INDIA LTD , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

270A of the Act.\nThe Appellant prays leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend,\nsubstitute or delete grounds of appeal at any time before or at the\ntime of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal to decide this appeal in accordance with the law.\nAt the outset, learned counsel for the assessee\nrequested

CUMMINS INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1(1),, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

270A of the Act.\n\nThe Appellant prays leave to add, alter, vary, omit, amend,\nsubstitute or delete grounds of appeal at any time before or at the\ntime of appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate\nTribunal to decide this appeal in accordance with the law.\n\nAt the outset, learned counsel for the assessee

PRASHANT BALASAHEB KAGE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2 duly explained that under reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing of Police Department etc. were also furnished by the assesse and therefore, the levy of penalty u/s 270A without

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assesse had duly explained that concealment of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing

RAJENDRA SHIVAJI THETE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assesse had duly explained that under reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ENTERPRISEDB SOFTWARE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 989/Pun/2023 & Co No. 008/Pun/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(1), Pune . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

TDS, the Ld. AO disallowed the License fees u/s 40(a)(i) of the Act and assessed the total income accordingly u/s 143(3) of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 8 DCIT Vs Enterprises Software India Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 989/PUN/2023 & Co No. 008/PUN/2024 2.3 Aggrieved assessee carried the matter in an appeal u/s 246A

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2140/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Santosh Ashokrao Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Barhanpurkar, Flat No.B-8, Deepali Appt., Near Bus Stop Mahatmangar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Aawpb8671N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Basavaraj Hiremath Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs. 1,15,938/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under-Reported As A Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assesse had duly explained that under-reported as a consequence of misreporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against

RAJENDRA SHYAMKANT SHIVRAME,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2 (1), NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly explained that under reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing

RAJENDRA SHYAMKANT SHIVRAME,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly explained that under reporting of income in his case was attributable to wrong action of tax consultant and all the material facts relating thereto along with substantiating evidences in form of complaint filed against Tax Consultant before Economic Wing

CUMMINS INDIA LTD.,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.923/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Cummins India Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. 5Th Floor, Survey No.21, Tower- A, Cummins India Office Campus, Balewadi, Pune- 411045. Pan : Aaacc7258B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 12.12.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-3, Bengaluru For The Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Cummins India Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Company" Or "The Appellant") Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal For The Assessment Year

2. Erroneously considering the amount of INR 22,06.17.804/- as deemed income under section 41 of the Act of the Appellant: The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the amount of INR 22,06,17,804/- as disclosed in clause 25 of the Tax Audit Report was already offered to tax by the Appellant

TOKAI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,HINGOLI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-(1), JALNA, JALNA

Appeal is partly allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri G.D.Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.571/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana The Income Tax Officer, Ltd., Vs Ward-1, Jalna. Villag Kurunda, Taluka Basmath . District, Hingoli – 431512. Pan: Aaat6997Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Anand Partani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/01/2024

2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) has erred in disallowing interest expenses paid to Maharashtra State Co-operative Bank of Rs 38,13,100, - under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 . The loans are availed for business purpose and therefore the interest is an allowable expenses. The addition

APAASSO MALI,PUNE vs. ITO 11(1), SWARGATE

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

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

TDS) amounting to 3,48,250/-, which was deducted from the income of the Appellant. Ground No.5 5.1 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in invoking section 69 to tax undisclosed investments when the appellant is assessed under section 44AD on presumptive basis. 5.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case