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

capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income of the assessee. In the assessment

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

capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,268/-. In our considered view there is no intentional misrepresentation of expenditure as alleged. By no stretch of imagination it can be said to be a case of attempted tax evasion as even after revision of computation, the taxable income remained Nil which is same as returned income of the assessee. In the assessment

QUBIX BUSINESS PARK PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

capital gains earned during the subject year 8. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234A of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO erred in levying interest under section 234A of the Act, despite the Appellant filing its return of income within the prescribed due date. 9. Erroneous levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Act The NFAC / Ld.AO

ASSTT. COMMISSSIONER OF INCOME TAX, EXEMPTIONS, CIRCLE PUNE, P.M.T BUILDING SWARGATE PUNE vs. KEDARI REDEKAR SHIKSHAN SANSTHA GADHINGLAJ , GADHINGLAJ

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 270A(2) are not satisfied. 8.3 The Ld. AR further submitted that the Ld. AO failed to record any satisfaction while levying penalty in respect of allegation of misrepresentation of fact at the time of completion of assessment. There is distinction between mistake and misrepresentation. Mistake is inadvertent and is only an error committed while misrepresentation is often willful

MUSTAFA ALIHUSAIN SUNELWALA,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming levy of penalty of Rs 1548234/- u/s 270A(9) without appreciating that the specific limb of Sub- Section

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

Capital Gain. In view of the above, the Assessing Officer rightly invoked the provision of section 270A of the Act for under

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

capital loss despite transaction is not falling under section 94 (7) of the act holding it to be sham and fictitious transaction is devoid of any merit. Accordingly on the merits also, orders of the lower authorities are reversed and ground number 4 – 7 of the appeal are allowed.” 20. We find Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in the case

PUNKAAJ KAALAY,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ACT, CPC, CPC

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

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

capital gain earned by the assessee from sale of immovable property which were not substantiated by any evidence and therefore the assessee is liable for penalty of Rs.31,07,110/- u/s 270A of the Act which is equal to 50% of the amount of tax payable on underreported income. Accordingly, the Ld. AO vide his order dated 23.06.2023 imposed

ASHUTOSH DUBEY,KANJURMARG vs. DCIT CIRCLE-8, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2215/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ashutosh Dubey, V Income Tax Officer, Tower 8, Flat No.3201, Runwal S Circle-8, Pune. Forest, Lbs Road, Kanjurmarg West, Maharashtra – 400078 Pan: Ajppd0173M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Amar Pandey (Virtual) Revenue By Smt Neha Thakur (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 20/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18/02/2026

capital gains derived from the transfer of property. Therefore, the A.O. ought not to have levied the penalty under Section 270A

UDAY UTTAMRAO NEVASE,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER / ASSESSMENT UNIT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2606/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Uday Uttamrao Nevase, V The Assessing Officer / Saugandh Niwas, Hind Colony S Assessment Unit, Pune. Lane No.1 A, Bhekrai Nagar, Phursungi, Pune – 412308. Pan: Akqpn1150Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Ca Rohan Gupta Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23 Dated 04.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section 270A, Dated 17.09.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “Ground 1 Section 270Aa Immunity Cit A Erred In Law By Confirming The Penalty Of Rs 629382 Under Section 270A Without Considering And

section 143(1) of the Act. 14. In this case, admittedly there is an incorrect claim and also mis-representation of facts. 15. Assessee has consciously claimed deduction u/s.80DD, 80CCD, 80DDB, 80E, 80EEA, 80EEB and 80GGC of the Act, knowing fully well that Assessee is not eligible. For example, Deduction u/s.80GGC is for Donation given to political party. Assessee

AMRUTA VIVEK PADALIKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR

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

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

gain even though no such capital asset is transferred by the appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3 ITA Nos.1913 & 1914/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 5. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays for just, proper

AMRUTA VIVEK PADALIKAR,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), KOLHPAUR

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

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

gain even though no such capital asset is transferred by the appellant. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 3 ITA Nos.1913 & 1914/PUN/2025, AY 2018-19 5. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming charging of interest under section 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant prays for just, proper

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. ASHISH JUGALKISHOR BHALA, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22 Dcit, Aurangabad Ashish Jugalkishor Bhala Mamta Hospital, Shivaji Putla Road, Vs. Bharat Nagar, Jalna – 431203 Maharashtra Pan: Ahmpb3683K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anand Partani Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 01-04-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16-06-2025 O R D E R

270A for under reporting of income are initiated herewith.” 8. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition by observing as under: “5.2 I have gone through the submission of the appellant along with supporting documents submitted during the appellate proceedings as well as during the assessment proceedings before the Ld. AO. The appellant has contested the determination

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

gain from sale of TDR as exempt\nfrom tax u/s.96 of the Right to Fair Compensation and\nTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement\nAct, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act).\n2. The brief facts of the case is that during the course of assessment\nproceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that the Respondent's\ncapital account had increased by Rs.6

SANJEEVKUMAR MANCHAND RAJPUT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section as evident from the language is that a mere under reporting attracts penalty of 50% with certain exclusions, while mis-reportinq attracts a higher penalty of 200%. The legislature has intentionally distinguished between mis- reporting and under reporting by providing specific definition of mis- reporting and exclusions to under reporting. In my view by suppressing his gross total income

SANJEEVKUMAR MANCHAND RAJPUT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

section as evident from the language is that a mere under reporting attracts penalty of 50% with certain exclusions, while mis-reportinq attracts a higher penalty of 200%. The legislature has intentionally distinguished between mis- reporting and under reporting by providing specific definition of mis- reporting and exclusions to under reporting. In my view by suppressing his gross total income

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

capital gains amounting to INR 3,26,81,816 at an incorrect rate of 25% instead of 20% under section 112 of the Act and has consequently computed incorrect tax liability 7. The Lid AO has erred in computing the tax liability on income earned by the Appellant from business operations and other sources by applying at an incorrect base

FARUK RAFIK MUJAWAR,ICHALKARANJI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ICHALKARANJI

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

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

capital gain from sale of immovable property and business income of Rs.6,53,339/-. The assessee also furnished audited balance sheet, profit & loss account and audit report in Form 3CB & 3CD duly certified by a Chartered Accountant, this audit report was duly uploaded on income tax portal on 31.10.2018. After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed