ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Gains\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that\nthese provisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act, the Id. A.O. had not specified the limb under which the penalty proceedings were being initiated and hence, since the notice issued is illegal, the penalty order passed u/s.274 r.w.s.271(l)(c) be held to be invalid in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that even

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

gains under the Act, in addition it being a recognised accounting principle. Therefore, the AO, in the process of calculation of correct book profit on account of reduction in capital applied the FIFO principle to the business loss which first existed / occurred in the books of account of the appellant. In the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the appellant

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

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

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

gains under the Act, in addition it being a recognised accounting principle. Therefore, the AO, in the process of calculation of correct book profit on account of reduction in capital applied the FIFO principle to the business loss which first existed / occurred in the books of account of the appellant. In the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) of the appellant

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains earned on sale of immovable property has supressed the fact that he had taxable income in his hands. Thus when 270A(9) (a) is read with 270A(2) (b) and 270A(3) (1) (b) (A), there is under reporting of income consequent to misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.24,70,490/-in hands of appellant

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

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

274(2) of the Act. 12. Issue Demand Notice & Challan accordingly.” 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order, Assessee filed appeal before ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 3 ITA No.1286/PUN/2025 [A] Relevant paragraphs 6.3, 6.4 and 7 of the ld.CIT(A)’s are reproduced here as under : “6.3 As regards the plea taken by appellant

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

section (3) of section 143 for any\nprevious year; or\nc) Such case has been selected in accordance with the risk\nmanagement strategy, formulated by the Board from time to\ntime, for any previous year;\nThe Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall—\ni.\ncall for such documents or information from the trust\nor institution, or make such inquiry as he thinks

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

274 initiated through notice on 27.12.2019. During assessment proceedings, it was noticed that the assessee initially claimed capital expenditure of Rs. 2,40,02,0401-. The assessee later revised the claim to Rs.97,47,772/-, attributing the initial error to wrongly including loan amount financed by the bank. Show cause notices were issued on 17.05.2021 and 08.06.2021. The assessee

PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT LTD ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

gains derived or any amount received, Petitioner shall not be liable to pay income tax or any other tax in the relevant years. Therefore Petitioner was not liable to pay additional income tax under Section 115-O of the said Act. In the circumstances, Petitioner’s payments under protest need to be refunded to the Petitioner.” [Emphasized

M/S. PIAGGIO VEHICLES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 4,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.868/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Piaggio Vehicles Private Ltd., V The Assistant Sky One Corporate Park, S Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor, Survey Tax, Circle-4, Pune. No.239/02, Near Pune Airport, Pune – 411032. Pan: Aabcp1225G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Siddhesh Chaugule – Ar Revenue By Shri Vidya Ratan - Dr Date Of Hearing 18/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 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(Appeals)-13, Pune For Assessment Year 2015-16 Dated 06.10.2022 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. Refund Of Excess Taxes Paid On Dividend Distributed On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon'Ble Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Granting The Benefit Of Article 11 Of The India-

gains derived or any amount received, Petitioner shall not be liable to pay income tax or any other tax in the relevant years. Therefore Petitioner was not liable to 14 pay additional income tax under Section 115-O of the said Act. In the circumstances, Petitioner’s payments under protest need to be refunded to the Petitioner.” [Emphasized

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

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