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.

90 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Depreciationclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi907Mumbai866Ahmedabad295Bangalore135Chennai90Pune90Jaipur88Kolkata79Chandigarh52Raipur50Hyderabad43Indore38Surat32Visakhapatnam26Amritsar24Lucknow23Rajkot11Nagpur10Jodhpur8Cochin8Dehradun8Agra7Guwahati6Ranchi5Karnataka4SC4Patna3Panaji3Allahabad3Cuttack3Jabalpur2Telangana1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)170Section 143(3)82Addition to Income76Depreciation55Penalty53Disallowance41Section 14736Section 27432Section 69B31Section 80I

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

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

ITA 636/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 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 : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S Pathak &For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 263Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs.89,42,896/- which is the subject matter for levy of penalty. 3. The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC and the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restricted the disallowance u/s 14A to Rs.1,82,234/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

Showing 1–20 of 90 · Page 1 of 5

24
Section 143(2)22
Section 14822

SAKAL PAPER LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 348/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

For Appellant: Shri Ashok N. KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

depreciation / losses of earlier years of 80IA unit are set off there would be no profit for A.Y. 2007-08 to be claimed u/s 80IA(4). Since assessee has claimed ineligible deduction u/s 80IA(4), penalty proceedings u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271 (1)c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Demand and challan are also issued accordingly .The penalty order is passed with prior approval of competent authority.” 4.2. Thus, it is observed from the impugned penalty order that the AO has not specifically stated the reasons for the Penalty. It is necessary for the AO to discuss

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 708/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.707 & 708/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune. Pune- 411003. Pan: Aaack7297E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue By Shri Anurag Shivastava Date Of Hearing 11-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12-04-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : Both These Appeals Are Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune’S Two Separate Orders Commonly Dated 08.01.2018 For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.707/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on TG-III [Turbo Generato (TG-3)] @ 80% under entry no.III 8(ix)(D) of the Part A of Appendix I and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished. 6. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings by issuing show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

KIRLOSKAR FERROUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

ITA 707/PUN/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Apr 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.707 & 708/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Kirloskar Ferrous Industries Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-14, Laxmanrao Kirloskar Road, Khadki, Pune. Pune- 411003. Pan: Aaack7297E Appellant Respondent Assessee By Shri C. H. Naniwadeker Revenue By Shri Anurag Shivastava Date Of Hearing 11-04-2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12-04-2022 आदेश / Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am : Both These Appeals Are Against Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 7, Pune’S Two Separate Orders Commonly Dated 08.01.2018 For Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012- 13 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Issues Are Involved In Both The Appeals, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.707/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2011-12 Are Stated Herein.

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

depreciation on TG-III [Turbo Generato (TG-3)] @ 80% under entry no.III 8(ix)(D) of the Part A of Appendix I and the same was disallowed by the Assessing Officer on the ground that no documentary evidence was furnished. 6. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings by issuing show-cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2732/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 10. From the above ratio of the decision of the Tribunal (supra), it is evident that the issue is very much identical to the issue of the present appeals, which is for adjudication

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2731/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 10. From the above ratio of the decision of the Tribunal (supra), it is evident that the issue is very much identical to the issue of the present appeals, which is for adjudication

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

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

ITA 2733/PUN/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ghai
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of assessee is allowed. 10. From the above ratio of the decision of the Tribunal (supra), it is evident that the issue is very much identical to the issue of the present appeals, which is for adjudication

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 1027/PUN/2004[1998-99]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1998-99

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld.CIT(A) vide order dt.22.12.2006. Revenue is also in appeal for A.Y. 1998-99 in quantum proceedings against the order of Ld.CIT(A) dt.30.03.2004. Since the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee, all appeals are considered together. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 624/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld.CIT(A) vide order dt.22.12.2006. Revenue is also in appeal for A.Y. 1998-99 in quantum proceedings against the order of Ld.CIT(A) dt.30.03.2004. Since the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee, all appeals are considered together. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 722/PUN/2004[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld.CIT(A) vide order dt.22.12.2006. Revenue is also in appeal for A.Y. 1998-99 in quantum proceedings against the order of Ld.CIT(A) dt.30.03.2004. Since the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee, all appeals are considered together. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

ITA 351/PUN/2007[1996-97]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 1996-97

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Nirupama Kotru
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) by Ld.CIT(A) vide order dt.22.12.2006. Revenue is also in appeal for A.Y. 1998-99 in quantum proceedings against the order of Ld.CIT(A) dt.30.03.2004. Since the aforesaid appeals pertain to same assessee, all appeals are considered together. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHODAWAT ENERGY (I) PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1170/PUN/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Mar 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 2Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation to Rs.34,79,380/-. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 24-03-2014 levied penalty of Rs.12,73,191/- u/s. 271

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2420/PUN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

depreciation on Plant & Machinery and under Sec.43B of the Act etc. under sec.143 rws 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2419/PUN/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

depreciation on Plant & Machinery and under Sec.43B of the Act etc. under sec.143 rws 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

MANAV PACKAGING INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 11(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 2418/PUN/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Aug 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B. PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri S.P. Walimbe
Section 143Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 43B

depreciation on Plant & Machinery and under Sec.43B of the Act etc. under sec.143 rws 147 of the Act. The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

GODAVARI KHORE SAHAKARI DUDH UTPADAK SANGH LTD,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, AHMEDNAGAR CIRCLE ,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 2335/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2335/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Godavari Khore Sahakari Dudh Utpadak Sangh Ltd., A/P Sahajanandnagar, Tal. Kopargaon, Dist. Ahmednagar. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaaag0652R बनाम / V/S. Acit, Ahmednagar Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Ahmednagar. Assessee By : Shri Prasanna Joshi Revenue By : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.03.2021 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 03.03.2021 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 2, Pune (‘Cit(A)’ For Short) Dated 12.07.2017 Confirming The Levy Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax, Act, 1961 (‘The Act’ For Short) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is Cooperative Society Engaged In The Business Of Milk Processing. The Appellant Society Filed The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Through Electronically Mode On 22.09.2013 Disclosing Rs.Nil Income After Setting Off Of The Brought

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

depreciation of Rs.10,55,526/-, disallowance of belated payment of employees contribution to PPF of Rs.33,43,522/-, additions on account of profit from business of sale of fertilizers and seeds and interest received from MSEB etc. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 271

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 286/PUN/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the basis of addition made u/s 50 of the Act. The factum of sale of Helicopter for a consideration of Rs1,20,78,500/- was duly reflected in the annual accounts of the assessee. However, while computing the amount of admissible depreciation

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 287/PUN/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the basis of addition made u/s 50 of the Act. The factum of sale of Helicopter for a consideration of Rs1,20,78,500/- was duly reflected in the annual accounts of the assessee. However, while computing the amount of admissible depreciation

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 288/PUN/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Dec 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Suhas Kulkarni
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer had levied penalty on the basis of addition made u/s 50 of the Act. The factum of sale of Helicopter for a consideration of Rs1,20,78,500/- was duly reflected in the annual accounts of the assessee. However, while computing the amount of admissible depreciation