SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

delay in filing of the appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 2 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company registered under the Companies Act and engaged in the activity of construction. It filed its return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.44,60,670/-. The return

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

270A as well as 272A(1)(d) and u/s 271AAC of income tax act. 6.2 On the facts and circumstances of the case the LD AO erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, 234D and fee u/s 234F for default in furnishing return of income are. Ground No. 7 The Appellant hereby reserves the right to add, amend

KOLHAPUR ZILLA KRISHI KARMACHARI SAHAKARI SANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 2(1) , KOLHAPUR

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

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

270A of the Act @ 50% of tax payable on the amount of under reported income amounting to Rs.5,72,116/- vide his order dated 15.09.2021. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 223 days. The assessee filed an application for condonation of the said delay but without

THE MAYANI URBAN CO OP BANK LTD,SATARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE SATARA

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

9) of section 270A of the Act was imposed for Rs.1,51,140/- for under reporting in consequence of misreporting. In first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC found that the appeal was furnished with the delay of 1184 days and according to Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC the delay cannot be condoned

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

ARIHANT VASTUSHILP PROPCON PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of purchase, sale and letting of leased residential and non-residential buildings. It filed its original return of income

MAHRATTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, INDUSTRIES AND AGRICULTURE,PUNE vs. CIT(A), NFAC, DELHI, DELHI

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

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

9) of section 2 of the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938) or 4. The address of the assessee as furnished in Form No-61 to the Director of Income Tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) or to the Joint Director of Income Tax (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) under sub- rule (1) of Rule 114D, or 5. The address

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.

9) of the Act. Therefore, respectfully following ITAT Pune and ITAT Mumbai decisions the AO is directed to delete the penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.” 8. We further find that apart from above decision the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal Pune Benches Pune has also passed other decisions

SOU JAYEE MOHITE SP MANDAL,SATARA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1378/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Sou Jayee Mohite Sp Mandal, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Rethare Bk,Tal Karad, Pune Dist. Satara – 415108 Maharashtra Pan : Aadts7345B Appellant Respondent

delay u/s.119(2)(b) is applicable to those cases where the return of income has not been filed or the return filed is invalid. Thus, the ld. CIT, Exemption rejected the condonation application of the appellant on the ground that the assessee’s return is a valid return and the same had already been processed

DEEPAK BHIKA SURYAWANSHI,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

270A (8) & (9) r.w. clauses (a to f) that the learned Assessing Officer’s failure to pinpoint the corresponding default of assessee’s part indeed vitiates the entire proceedings as per (2022) 443 ITR 186 (Del) Schneider Electric South Asia Ltd. Vs. ACIT (in the new scheme) and Md. Farhan Vs. ACIT (2021) 434 ITR 1 (Bom.) in section

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a body of individuals and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.6

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a body of individuals and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.6

SHARADCHANDRA NAGARI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD -10(1), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee vide ITA Nos

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

270A of the Act. For the sake of convenience, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a body of individuals and had filed its return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income of Rs.6

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 07.01.2022 passed u/s. 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.3176 & 3177/PUN./2025 (Raigaon Sugar and Power Ltd.) 2. Registry has informed that there

RAIGAON SUGAR AND POWER LIMITED,KARAD vs. ITO, WARD-1, CIR-SATARA, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandra

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of assessment order dated 29.04.2021 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act and penalty order dated 07.01.2022 passed u/s. 270A of the Act for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2 ITA.No.3176 & 3177/PUN./2025 (Raigaon Sugar and Power Ltd.) 2. Registry has informed that there

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

270A of the Act. 16. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 17. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute, and to withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. In ITA No.2800/PUN/2024, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “The Appellant objects

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

270A of the Act. 16. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 17. The Appellant craves leave to add, to amend, to alter, to substitute, and to withdraw any or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. In ITA No.2800/PUN/2024, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “The Appellant objects

SHRI PREMPRAKASHISHPRAKASH SHARMA,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

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

delayed and therefore, the CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeal on merits. 2. The assessee submits that in the present case, the exact limb of section 270A(9) was neither stated by A.O. in the asst, order u/s 147 nor in the penalty notice u/s 274 r.w.s 270A and therefore, the initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 270A without