VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

property was vacant in the respective years. 24. Referring to the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer, he submitted that the Assessing Officer levied penalty on the ground that ignorance of law cannot be taken as a plea in any penal proceedings. He submitted that since the house

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

House Property”, which was claimed in the revised return dated 28.11.2017. The AO discussed the issue at length in the assessment order. The AO accepted Return of Income filed in response to notice under section 148. The AO initiated penalty

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandi, S Kalanagar, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 11.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

House Property to the extent of (-) Rs.1,79,783/-. Also, the assessee disclosed income under the head Salaries of Rs.6,89,400/- as against Rs.4,76,110/- disclosed in the Original Return of Income. 2.4 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) completed the re-opened assessment proceedings by passing an order under section 147 r.w.s

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD., AURANGABAD. vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTION LTD, AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

property, but was received merely to fulfill additional requirements asked by the customers after registering the sale deed for transfer of row house and this fact is mentioned in the statement on which reliance has been 4 ITA.No.1375/PUN./2024 (Tapadiya Construction Ltd.) placed by the Department for levying impugned penalty

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

penalty under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of particulars of income. In the assessment order, the AO has categorically mentioned that assessee had fraudulently obtained excess refund by fraudulently claiming loss from Income from House Property

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

house property, you have accepted to own two flats.” 5.1 The Ld. AR brought our attention to the notice dated 11.03.2024 (copy at page 1 of the paper book) for penalty

SUHAS JAGANNATH KANASE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

house property loss and deduction u/s 80TTA of the IT Act, we remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Accordingly, ground no.4, 5 & 6 are allowed for statistical purposes. 13. The ground no.7 challenging the initiation of penalty

KARMAVEER BHAUSAHEB HIRAY NASHIK JILHA KRISHI AUDYOGIKSAHAKARI SANGH LTD. KRISHI BHAVAB,MUMBAI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, NASHIK

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

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

house property) of Rs.35,97,139/-, interest income and dividend income (under the head income from other source) of Rs.1,50,41,447/-. However, as per return filed by assessee, the deduction u/s.80P is allowed to the extent of Rs.1,08,70,807/- after set off of business losses, therefore the disallowance on account of deduction claimed by assessee u/s.80P

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO 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 No’S.365 & 366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. S Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Both Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

penalty u/s 270A was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief facts of the case (ITA No.365/PUN/2023) : 3. In this case, assessee is an individual filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,88,820/- and claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs.2,42,540/-; house property

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO 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 No’S.365 & 366/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, V Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. S Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Both Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017-18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

penalty u/s 270A was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief facts of the case (ITA No.365/PUN/2023) : 3. In this case, assessee is an individual filed Return of Income for A.Y. 2017-18 on 21.07.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,88,820/- and claimed deduction under Chapter VI-A of Rs.2,42,540/-; house property

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.466/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandir, S Kalanagar, Indiara Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 17/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 12.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

House Property to the extent of (-) Rs.2,00,000/-. Also, the assessee disclosed income under the head Salaries of Rs.7,79,226/- as against Rs.6,32,280/- disclosed in the Original Return of Income. 2.4 After considering the submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer(AO) completed the re-opened assessment proceedings by passing an order under section

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO 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 No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

House Property”. The AO accepted the Return of Income filed in response to notice under section 148 without making any addition, accordingly, the AO passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. However, AO issued penalty

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO 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 No’S.361 & 362/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Both Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 19.01.2022 & 18.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 & 2018-19 Respectively. The Assessee For A.Y.2017- 18 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 270A Of Rs.1,57,400/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish

House Property”. The AO accepted the Return of Income filed in response to notice under section 148 without making any addition, accordingly, the AO passed an order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. However, AO issued penalty

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE vs. DILIP MOTILALJI CHORDIA, PUNE

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

Housing and Area Development\nAct. Accordingly, even if the respondent contends that the land was\nacquired under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,\n1966, the provisions of the RFCTLARR Act would not be applicable\nto such acquisition in view of its specific exclusion under Schedule V.\n15. Section 96 of the RFCTLARR Act provides for exemption from\npayment

MANISHA VIKRANT SHAH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

penalty order. It is observed therefrom that the assessee stated therein that a house property situated at Solapur was sold

KONGNOLI SARVA SEVA SAHAKARI SOCIETY LIMITED,SANGLI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), SANGLI

The appeal of the assessee is ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 577/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Kongnoli Sarva Seva Society Ltd., Ap Kongnoli, Tal- Kavathe Mahankal, Dist. - Sangli – 416 418 Pan: Aabak3021D . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant

House Property’ and ‘Other Sources’, by the Income Tax Officer [‘AO’ in short] by an order dt. 12/02/2016. 4.2 Pursuant to the satisfaction noted in the aforestated assessment order, the Ld. AO initiated penalty

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have also been initiated separately.”\n5. Ld. AO also noticed that assessee had claimed an expense of Rs.2,31,13,761/- on account of provision for pending expenses relating to the contracts but since there was no plausible explanation by the assessee ld. AO came to conclusion that provisioning

SHRI DEVENDRA SWARUPCHAND SHINGAVI,PUNE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A),, PUNE-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

penalty of Rs.3,13,946/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and derives income from rental income from house property

MRS. SUREKHA HANUMANTRAO PAWAR,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD 14(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.225/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs.Surekha Hanumantrao V The Income Tax Officer, Pawar, S. Ward-14(1), Pune. Sr.No.47, Sunita Nagar, Vadgaon Sheri, Pune - 411014. Maharashtra. Pan: Bhepp5383D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Digambar Surwase – Ar Revenue By Shri Ajitesh Kumar Meena – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed 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.2012-13 Dated 02.07.2024. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

house property. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 5. On facts and circumstances of case and in law, CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,09,256/- under the head business or profession. The appellant prays for just, proper and appropriate relief. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete