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)

3 5.2 The NFAC / Ld.AO has erred in not taking cognizance of the submissions made during assessment proceedings that adjustment carried out in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act is on account of non-consideration of the revised Tax Audit Report filed by the Assessee. 6. Provisions of Chapter XIIB are independent and TP adjustments

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

Capital Gains', which had been suo-moto reclassified the head of income and also offered to tax by the Appellant, 2.3. Disregarding the accepted legal position that penalty cannot be levied merely on account of change in head of Income which is also affirmed by the various Courts and Tribunals 3. Ground No. 3 - Confirming the order of learned

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

3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,18,44,630/- as against the returned income of Rs.23,83,97,010/-, wherein he made an addition of Rs.8,33,51,448/- to the income determined u/sec.143(1)(a) by making addition of the difference between the profit estimated @ 10% and the profit declared by the assessee

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

3) determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.32,18,44,630/- as against the returned income of Rs.23,83,97,010/-, wherein he made an addition of Rs.8,33,51,448/- to the income determined u/sec.143(1)(a) by making addition of the difference between the profit estimated @ 10% and the profit declared by the assessee

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

3) on 28.12.2019. Excess claim of capital expenditure of Rs.1,42,54,2681- on assets was disallowed and added back to the income. Satisfaction was recorded -that the assessee misrepresented the income. Penalty proceedings u/s. 270A r.w.s 274 initiated through notice on 27.12.2019. During assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee initially claimed capital expenditure

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 (9) of Sec 270A is not invoked nor the specific charge is being made out in the impugned order

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-reporting of income in consequence to mis- reporting of income. 5 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I hold that assessee has 'under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting and are liable

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

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

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

3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, in our considered view, there is no dispute regarding the explanation offered by the assessee for the income offered towards 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

3) of section 143 or section 147, as the case may be, has been paid within the period specified in such notice of demand; and (b) no appeal against the order referred to in clause (a) has been filed. (2) An application referred to in sub-section (1) shall be made within 8 one month from

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

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

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

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

3. Claim of expenditure not substantiated by evidence; 4. Recording of any false entry in the books of accounts; 5. Failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and 6 …… It is evident that in cases of under reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting thereof, sec.270A(8) and (9) would

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

3. Claim of expenditure not substantiated by evidence; 4. Recording of any false entry in the books of accounts; 5. Failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and 6 …… It is evident that in cases of under reporting of income as a consequence of mis-reporting thereof, sec.270A(8) and (9) would

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

3,625 19,57,500 Total Number of Shares Purchased 1,19,360 6,44,54,400/- Thus, considering the fair market value of Rs.661/- per share the differential amount of Rs.121/- (661-540)*1,19,360 which comes to Rs.1,44,42,560/- is added to the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(x) of the Income

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