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

section 245D(6B) r.w.s. 245D(2D) dated 20.10.2015. The assessee filed a writ petition No.868 of 2016 against the order passed u/s 245D(6B) r.w.s. 245D(2D) dated 20.10.2015 which was pending at the time of passing of the order by Ld. CIT(A). 6. As Shri Vinod Jadhav had paid only the first installment granted vide order u/s 245D

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

46,986/- and thereby committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, without any reasonable cause In view of the above position, the assessee is liable to be penalized u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, minimum penalty

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

46,986/- and thereby committed default within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961, without any reasonable cause In view of the above position, the assessee is liable to be penalized u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, minimum penalty

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

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

46. Section 36(l)(viia) of the Act provides for deduction of provision for bad debts, while Section 36(1 )(vii) deals with deduction for bad debts actually written off. In the facts of the assessee, it has actually written off bad debts in relation to credit card business taken over by the assessee during the assessment year

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

46 of the paper book, he submitted that the revised return was duly processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation dated 27.08.2020 wherein the income from business and profession was accepted at Rs.96,55,083/- as against Rs.93,75,983/-. Therefore, once the revised return has been processed it cannot be said that the same is invalid. 10

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 DCIT Vs Honeywell Automation India Ltd ITA Nos.2180/PUN/2024 & CO 06/PUN/2025 3.2 On first two additions/disallowances the matter travelled up to Tribunal, wherein by the order dt. 19/07/2019 passed in ITA 287/PUN/2015 the Ld. Co-ordinate bench vacated the denial of tax exemption/holiday claimed u/s

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

46,000/-. 3) On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in not complying with the provisions of section 251(1)(a) of the Act and send the matter back to the AO for verification on the issue of disallowance of write back provision for standard assets amounting to Rs.31

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

10 of the above decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to treat all the\nnotices issued u/s 148 after 1-4-2021 (as per provisions of section 148 prior to 31-\n03-2021) as notice_u/s_148A(b) and directed to provide the information and\nmaterial relied upon by the revenue to the assessee for issue of such notice, within

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under the said provisions of the Act. We find that the Revenue has also conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) that the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income.‖ 7. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

ASSOCIATION OF ORAL MAXILLOFACIAL SURGEONS OF INDIA,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.274/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Association Of Oral Maxillofacial Vs. Ito (Exemptions), Surgeons Of India, Ward-1, Pune Pn 38, S.No.16, Butte Patil Classic, Prabhat Road, Erandwane, Pune 411 004 Maharashtra Pan : Aabta3313P Appellant Respondent

46,999/-. The ld. CIT(A) invoked Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and upheld the penalty. Aggrieved thereby, the assessee has approached the Tribunal. 3. We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material on record. The ld. AR opened his arguments by urging that the matter be restored to the lower

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income. [Addition Rs.7,93,62,371/-] 10. After going through the submissions and above mentioned discussion, the total assessed income of the assessee is as under : Total Income as per return : (-)Rs.1,95,25,614/- Add : As per discussion in para

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

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

u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee has cogent material/documentary evidence to prove his contentions before the Ld. CIT(A) which were duly submitted though unintentionally in the different window relating to the penalty proceedings (pages 27 to 46 of the paper book refers). The Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order since

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

10 of the above decision, Hon'ble Apex Court has directed to treat all the\nnotices issued u/s 148 after 1-4-2021 (as per provisions of section 148 prior to 31-\n03-2021) as notice u/s 148A(b) and directed to provide the information and\nmaterial relied upon by the revenue to the assessee for issue of such notice

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

10,70,500 258 3,88,000 1417 02/03/2011 26/12/2014 12,85,000 13,28,000 320 43,000 1511 15/02/2010 25/01/2016 7,76,000 11,22,000 258 3,46,000 1507 09/01/2010 02/03/2016 6,91,900 11,22,000 258 4,30,100 Market Value as per sq. ft for 2011 1451psf. Market Value per sq.ft

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during