JAIBHAGWAN BANARASIDAS JINDAL,JALNA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

2. The Learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming an addition of capital gain on the sale of shares of M/s. Yamini Investment Company Limited of Rs.85,38,145/- which is declared as long-term capital gain exempt under section 10(38) of the Income Tax Act by holding as non genuine and unexplained cash credit under section

JAGANNATH SAMBHAJI SATAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

ab intio as such the communication framed contrary to the CBDT Circular no 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019 which mandate the quoting computer generated Documents Identification number (DIN) in the body of communication. 11. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, learned CIT(A) erred in confirming an interest charged under section 234A and section 234B of the Income

M/S BALAJI DEVELOPERS ,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.375/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17

35 filed on 11.01.2019. I would like to state that subsequently, I had left the assignment and the partners of the above mentioned firm had appointed a different CA for looking after the appeal work. I wish to state that the notices during the appellate proceedings, as well as the appellate order passed u/s 250 dated 16.10.2023 was received

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

DADASAHEB TIRODKAR SHAIKSHANIK ACADEMY,SINDHUDURG vs. ITOD EXEMPTION WARD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

35 of schedule BP)\n13\n0\nin\nIncome under the head Capital Gains\na\nShort term (A5 of schedule CG)\n13iila\n0\nb\nLong term (B3 of schedule CG) (enter nil if loss)\n13ilib\n0\nC\nTotal capital gains (13ilia +13iiib) (enter nil if loss)\n13ific\n0\niv\nIncome from other sources [as per item no. 4 of Schedule

AIDS SOCIETY OF INDIA,MUMBAI vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of employees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive and loose document found at the residential premises of employee has also been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing Trustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such alleged transaction in the statement given

AGRA OBSTETRICAL AND GYNAECOLOGICAL SOCIETY,AGRA vs. PCIT, CENTRAL, PUNE

capitation fees are merely based on the statement of\nemployees which have been subsequently retracted and the Pendrive\nand loose document found at the residential premises of employee has\nalso been retracted at the subsequent stage and that the Managing\nTrustee of the assessee trust has denied to be indulged into any of such\nalleged transaction in the statement given

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

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

BVG INDIA LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

35. On careful reading of the above, we note that the assessee therein contested, that the copy of approval u/s. 151 of the Act was not provided with the reasons recorded. The revenue contended that the approvals taken from higher authority are internal matter of the Department for communication and same cannot be provided. The Hon’ble High Court held

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