BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

154 results for “house property”+ Penaltyclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai1,313Delhi1,181Jaipur359Bangalore340Ahmedabad322Karnataka316Chennai262Hyderabad206Chandigarh190Kolkata159Pune154Indore112Cochin57Raipur55Visakhapatnam50Lucknow48Nagpur44Surat42Rajkot34Calcutta34Telangana33SC33Cuttack32Amritsar27Agra19Patna15Guwahati8Varanasi7Dehradun7Rajasthan7Jodhpur6Allahabad5Ranchi4Panaji4A.K. SIKRI ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN3Orissa2Punjab & Haryana1Jabalpur1Himachal Pradesh1ARIJIT PASAYAT C.K. THAKKER1

Key Topics

Section 14874Addition to Income62Section 271(1)(c)55Section 143(3)50Penalty46Section 270A43Section 14743Section 13240Section 143(2)31Section 139(1)

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

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

ITA 1307/PUN/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)

Showing 1–20 of 154 · Page 1 of 8

...
28
House Property27
Deduction24
Section 245H
Section 271(1)(c)

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

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

ITA 2144/PUN/2024[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Apr 2025

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

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – CIT and Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 153ASection 245C(1)Section 245DSection 245D(4)Section 245HSection 271(1)(c)

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

M/S. ANGELICA PROPERTIES PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX,,

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 1738/PUN/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

House Property’ without any evidence of repairs but once the Income is treated as business income the deductions is not automatic . Thus, there is definitely enhancement. Therefore, the CIT(A) was duty bound to follow procedure laid down in Section 251(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the Section 251 is reproduced here under

VASCON ENGINEERS LTD (SUCCESSOR TO ANGELICA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),PUNE vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 403/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Hon’Ble Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Hon’Ble Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 403/Pun/2015 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vason Engineers Ltd., Theadditional Commissioner Of (Formerly Angelica Properties Pvt. Vs Income Tax, Range1, Pune. Ltd.,) 301, Phoenix, Opp.Residency Club, Bund Garden Road, Pune – 411037. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No: 1738/Pun/2016 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Angelica Properties Pvt. Ltd., The Deputy Commissioner Of Opp. Grand Hyatt Hotel, Vs Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vimannagar, Puune – 411 014. Pan: Aafca 8644 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dharmesh Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Naveen Gupta – Dr Date Of Hearing 24/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Pune Dated 30.01.2015 & 09.06.2016 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. The Assessee In Ita No.403/Pun/2015 For The A.Y.2010-11 Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Law & In Facts Enhancing The Income From Sale Of ‘Matrix It Building’ By Changing The Head Of Income From Capital Gains To Business Income Without Complying With The Principles Of Natural Justice & Without Giving Any Opportunity Of Hearing.

Section 14A

House Property’ without any evidence of repairs but once the Income is treated as business income the deductions is not automatic . Thus, there is definitely enhancement. Therefore, the CIT(A) was duty bound to follow procedure laid down in Section 251(2) of the Act. For the sake of convenience, the Section 251 is reproduced here under

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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]

Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

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

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,LONAVALA vs. ITO CEN.II, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 474/PUN/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. It was seen from the balance sheet of the assessee that he had house properties

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 472/PUN/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. It was seen from the balance sheet of the assessee that he had house properties

KADIR USMAN SHAIKH,SATARA vs. ITO,CEN.II PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 473/PUN/2012[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Aug 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri T. Vijaya B. Reddy
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153BSection 234A

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. It was seen from the balance sheet of the assessee that he had house properties

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

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 467/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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]

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 80D

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

ITA 1375/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Joshi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk, Addl.CIT
Section 132Section 269SSection 271D

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

M/S. NATIONAL TEMPO HOUSE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1215/PUN/2016[BP: 1987-88 to 1997-98]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jan 2019

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1215/Pun/2016 Block Period : 1987-88 To 1997-98

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: S/Shri Avadhesh Kumar and Pankaj Garg
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 140ASection 158B

house property and unexplained marriage expenditure which was determined on the basis of estimation. The Tribunal had held that where the addition has been made on the basis of estimation and then it went on to say that no 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

ITA 364/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Jul 2023AY 2016-17

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]

Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 80CSection 80DSection 80T

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

ITA 1396/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 270(9)Section 270ASection 274Section 54F

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

ITA 1638/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Pritesh Raka &For Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari
Section 143(2)Section 192ASection 270A

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

ITA 628/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune14 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Charuhas Dwarkanath UpasaniFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(4)

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

ITA 366/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2023AY 2018-19

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 :

Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80D

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

ITA 365/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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 :

Section 133ASection 147Section 270ASection 80D

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

ITA 466/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

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]

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 80D

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

MUKTESH PRIVATE LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS MUKTESH CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2032/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jul 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.2032/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Muktesh Private Limited, The Ito, Ward-11(1), (Formerly Known As Muktesh Vs Pune. Chemicals Pvt. Ltd.,), Sarvatra Housing Society, Paud Road, Pune – 411 029. P_An : Aabcm 1922 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurabh Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S.P. Walimbe - Dr Date Of Hearing 09/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 06/07/2022 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(Appeals)-9, Pune For The A.Y. 2008-09 Dated 15.10.2019. 2. Briefly Stated, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Engaged In The Manufacturing Of Dna Chemicals. However, It Discontinued The Business & The Sheds Were Given On Rent. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 29.09.2008 Declaring Rs.Nil Income & Claimed Business Loss & Depreciation Loss Of Rs.4,77,246/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny. The Assessee Shown Rental Income Of Rs.4,77,246/- & Claimed Set Off Against The

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

house property and levied penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for filing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the order

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2566/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Oct 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Bharat ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gadekar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

property for Rs.61,91,000/-. Assessee had also claimed deduction of Rs.21,10,068/- on account of deposits of Rs.26,50,000/- in a specified bank account. The assessee was asked to prove the claim of construction of residential house. Assessee furnished necessary details and on its perusal, AO noticed that the claim of construction of residential house