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

2) A person shall be considered to have under- reported his income, if – (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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

2) A person shall be considered to have under- reported his income, if – (a) the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143; (b) the income assessed is greater than the maximum amount not chargeable to tax, where no return of income has been furnished

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

2) of the Act as the ultimate assessment had the effect of reducing the loss retuned by the assessee. It was further pointed out that under reporting of income has got certain exceptions as provided in section 270A(6) of the Act as under:- (6) The under-reported income, for the purposes of this section, shall not include the following

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

disallowances, this by no stretch of 13 imagination could be held to be 'misreporting' and further, in absence of details as to which limb of section 270A was attracted, impugned penalty order was to be quashed and revenue was to be directed to grant immunity under section 270AA. 7. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI, MALDAD SANGAMNER

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

270A as the Department is in process of filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the quantum appeal order passed on 01.07.2025 by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” Findings and Analysis : 2

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHAMEDNAGAR vs. KANIFNATH GRMAIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARIPATSANSTHA MARYADIT, , MALDAD

In the result, Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.2270 & 2271/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer, V Kanifnath Gramin Bigar Sheti Ward-2, Ahmednagar. S Sahakaripatsanstha Maryadit, At Post Malad, Taluka Sangamner, Ahmednagar – 422608. Pan: Aabak1395E Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Smt Neha Thakkar (Virtual) Date Of Hearing 19/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Bench : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac],Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018- 19Dated 01.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2021 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 143(3A) & 143(3B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 & Order Under Section 250 Of The Income

270A as the Department is in process of filing of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT against the quantum appeal order passed on 01.07.2025 by the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or delete the above ground of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble Tribunal.” Findings and Analysis : 2

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

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. 3. Ld CIT(A) erred in law and on facts

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

2. erred in upholding the order under section 143(3) read with section 154 of the Act dated 3 July 2023 holding that it is not crystal clear that the learned AO has accepted the Appellant's claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act without appreciating that the deduction was duly allowed vide earlier order under section

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

2. erred in upholding the order under section 143(3) read with section 154 of the Act dated 3 July 2023 holding that it is not crystal clear that the learned AO has accepted the Appellant's claim for deduction under section 80-IA of the Act without appreciating that the deduction was duly allowed vide earlier order under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), PUNE vs. SANGHVI BEAUTY AND TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED , PUNE

In the result, both the appeal filed by the Revenue as well\nas Cross Objection filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

270A for the said previous year.]\n[Provided also that the provisions of this clause shall not apply on or\nafter the Ist day of April, 2025.]\n\nExplanation. For the purposes of this clause,-\n(a) the fair market value of the shares shall be the value-\n(i) as may be determined in accordance with such method

ITO, PUNE vs. THE GOVERNMENT SERVENTS MAHARASHTRA CO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

sections": [ "250", "143(2)", "142(1)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "270A", "194A", "194A(3)(v)", "80P(2)(d)" ], "issues": "Whether transactions with nominal members by a cooperative society breach the principle of mutuality, thereby disallowing

ADVIK HI TECH PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DY.COMM..OF INCOMETAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

270A (a) to (f). 8 ITA.No.1344/PUN./2024 5. The appellant craves its right to add to or alter the Ground of objections at any time before or during the Course of the hearing of the case. 5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that penalty in the instant case has been levied on account

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

2 ITA No.559/PUN/2024, AY 2017-18 04. The Ld. CIT(A) disregarded the applicability of Section 270A(9) of the Act, which outlines scenarios of underreporting due to misreporting and allows for the imposition of a higher penalty. 05. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the language used in section 270A(9)(a), where

ITO, PUNE vs. THEGOVERNMENTSERVENTSMAHARASTRACO-OP CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are\ndismissed

disallowance made by the AO was deleted, but the assessee was directed to furnish details regarding transactions with different categories of members before the AO for verification.", "result": "Dismissed", "sections": [ "250", "143(2)", "142(1)", "80P", "80P(2)(a)(i)", "270A

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED (SUCCESSOR TO LIQUIDHUB INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2753/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Capgemini Technology V Assessment Unit, Services India S Income Tax Limited(Successor To Liquid Department. Hub India Private Limited), Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District Pune – 411057. Pan: Aaacl8943J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sudin Sabnis & Shri Siddhesh Khandalkar Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 05/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 19/01/2026 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.2020-21 Dated 02.09.2025 Emanating From The Penalty Order Passed Under Section

section 270A of the Act. 5. The Learned CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the Appellant 2 has voluntary filed a letter for disallowance

KUMAR PROPERTIES AND REAL ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 14, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

2), without appreciating that the investments were made in a partnership firm in the capacity of a partner, and the purpose for investment was purely business in nature and not to earn exempt income. 5. erred in not appreciating the fact that the provisions of section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules are not applicable

SHRI POPAT KARBHARI BHALERAO,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee invited our attention to penalty order dated 30.12.2021 passed under section 270A of the Act. The ld.AR explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has levied penalty under section 270A(9)(e) of the Act. The ld.AR explained that the sub-clause (e) Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalarao [A] is for failure to record

SHRI POPAT KARBHARI BHALERAO,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD.2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1323 & 1324/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalerao, The Income Tax Officer, Yeshdei Niwas, Maratha V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nagar, Near Rajrajeshwari S Mangal Karyalay, Jailroad, Nashik Road, Nashik-422101. Pan: Aaqpb3523N Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Cit(A)[Nfac] For A.Y.2017-18 Dated 02.09.2022 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From Penalty Order Under Section 270A Of The Act, Dated 30.12.2021. The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the assessee invited our attention to penalty order dated 30.12.2021 passed under section 270A of the Act. The ld.AR explained that the Assessing Officer(AO) has levied penalty under section 270A(9)(e) of the Act. The ld.AR explained that the sub-clause (e) Shri Popat Karbhari Bhalarao [A] is for failure to record

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

disallowance. Incorrect computation of Book Profit under section 115JB 10. The learned AO erred in computing the book profit of the Appellant as INR 44,18,82,070 as against INR 34,13,91,024 computed in the return of Income and processed in the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Act, without assigning any reason whatsoever. Incorrect