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

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.” 3

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

section 270A of the Act. The penalty amounts are calculated as under - The amount of under reporting of income 18,74,800 Tax on assessed income 3,18,956 Tax liability of returned income (no original return of - income filed) Tax on 'under-reporting of income in consequence of 3,18,956 misreporting. Penalty on 'under-reporting of income

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.

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 return. Assessee furnished reply to penalty notice but being unsatisfied the Assessing Officer vide order dated 22-08-2023 imposed penalty of Rs.1

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue as well as\nthe Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

TDS) v. Tushira Industries [2025] 168\ntaxmann.com 169 (Karnataka), wherein it was held that the income-\ntax exemption provided under Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act is\nrestricted only to the compensation or awards made under the\nprovisions of the said Act itself. The Hon'ble Court observed that the\nwording of Section 96 \"made under this Act\" is explicit

SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 270A of the Act. It is prayed that the Learned AO be directed to drop the penalty proceedings GENERAL: The Appellant reserves its right / craves leave to add, alter, amend and / or modify all or any of the Grounds of Appeal stated herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary to dispose

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

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

270A of the Income-tax Act,1961. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, and alter any or ITA No.571/PUN/2023 : A.Y.2018-19 Tokai Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd., [A] withdraw any grounds of appeal at or before the time of Appeal hearing.” 3. We advert to the first and foremost issue of section 43B disallowance of the assessee’s interest claim

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)

TDS deducted by employer. The assessee was the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant, who without informing him & others, claimed excess deduction under chapter VI-A of the IT Act & claimed refund. It was Kishor Patil who cheated

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)

3 u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.03.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,08,470/- u/s 270A(8) of the IT Act for underreporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty of Rs.1,08,470/- imposed

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

270A of the Act.” 6 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] Brief facts of the case : 2. The Assessee is a Public Limited Company which is listed on Bombay Stock exchange and National Stock Exchange. It is engaged in the business of Software development, and related services. It operates from various locations in India and also have branches in UK, Netherland, Canada

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

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

TDS deducted by employer. The assessee was\nunaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return filed by\nKishor Patil & truly believed that the returns are filed legally as per\nthe provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from\ntechnical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax &\ntherefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant

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.

3 of the IT Act on 20.09.2021 by accepting the income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 09.12.2021 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,49,704/- u/s 270A for under reporting of income in consequence of misreporting of income of Rs.3,83,860/-. 4. After considering the reply

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.

3 completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on 20.09.2021 by accepting the income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 12.01.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.1,15,938/- u/s 270A for misreporting amounts of Rs.3,83,860/-. 4. After considering the reply of the assessee

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

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 the Act 15. Erred in upholding the initiation of penalty proceedings by the AO as outlined above under section 274 in conjunction with section 270A of the Act. Any consequential