SOLAPUR SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act 3 was also initiated. In the meantime, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 20.03.2020 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee and gave relief of Rs.10,69,690/- regarding interest paid to cooperative society without deducting tax. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

disallowance of an amount shall form the basis for imposition of penalty, if such addition or disallowance has formed the basis

MS RAJMAL LAKHICHAND,JALGAON vs. DCIT, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1206/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Ms. Rajmal Lakhichand, Vs. Dcit, Jalgaon. 169, Balaji Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aacfr8609L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak : Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.09.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “The Grounds Of Appeal Stated Below Are Without Prejudice To Each Other. 1) That The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.62,95,800 U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Said Penalty Be Cancelled. 2) Gross Profit Addition

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act disallowance of proportionate interest expenses of Rs.3,08,889/- & the disallowance

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings. On the contrary, it reinforces the position that penalty has been

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings. On the contrary, it reinforces the position that penalty has been

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings. On the contrary, it reinforces the position that penalty has been

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not in any way vitiate the penalty proceedings. On the contrary, it reinforces the position that penalty has been

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

penalty which is required to be disallowed u/s.37 of\nthe Act as the same is not a penalty for infraction

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JALNA, INCOME TAX OFFICE, JALNA vs. THE BEED DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK LTD., BEED

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

penalty which is required to be disallowed u/s.37 of\nthe Act as the same is not a penalty for infraction

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04-06-2025 O R D E R

disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of penalty charges claimed (v) ₹11,00,000/- disallowance of claim of 80G etc. The aforestated additions and the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of penalty charges claimed (v) ₹11,00,000/- disallowance of claim of 80G etc. The aforestated additions and the assessment

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance of penalty charges claimed (v) ₹11,00,000/- disallowance of claim of 80G etc. The aforestated additions and the assessment

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.62,39,793/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated

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

disallowed and penalty proceedings initiated separately. In penalty proceedings, AO imposed 200% of the amount of tax payable on under

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

penalty imposed u/s.271(1)(c) on such disallowance, while deleting the penalty, held in para 7 of the order as below

SHRI. KISHOR TARACHAND PATIL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(2),, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1461/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Kishor Tarachand Patil, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2), Flat No.102, Shree Anant Villa Appt., Nashik Near Deepak Laundry, Samartha Nagar, Nashik- 422007. Pan : Ahrpp7621C Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri Sanket Milind Joshi Revenue By Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing 09-02-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11-02-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : This Appeal Is Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik’S Order Dated 15.12.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 570 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Appellant Filed Condonation Petition. In The Condonation Petition, The Appellant Submitted That The Appellant Had Suffered Due To Slow Down In Business Which Resulted In Huge Outstanding Of Creditors. Due To Financial Pressure, Health Of The Appellant Also Suffered. The Appellant Was Under Complete Bed Rest For More Than 5 Months Around March, 2016. The Appellant Filed Copy Of Medical Certificate. The Appellant Also Submitted That He Was Kidnapped By The Creditors. Subsequently, There Was A Criminal Case Filed Against The Appellant. The Appellant Also Filed Fir Against The Kidnappers. The Appellant Also Filed Copy Of The Fir. The Appellant Was Under Police Custody, When The Bail Petition Was Rejected By The Hon’Ble

disallowance made towards penalty and legal charges debited to P&L A/c without appreciating that the said addition made on ex-parte

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE,, RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme