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.

95 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 10(46)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,166Mumbai967Ahmedabad306Jaipur251Bangalore229Chennai146Kolkata129Karnataka125Hyderabad125Indore124Raipur121Pune95Chandigarh78Rajkot68Surat55Lucknow37Calcutta34Visakhapatnam29Nagpur29Amritsar27Allahabad25Cuttack21Dehradun17Agra15Cochin15Kerala14Guwahati10Jabalpur5Ranchi5Jodhpur4SC4Telangana3Panaji2Varanasi2Patna1Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)111Addition to Income64Section 143(3)57Section 153A54Section 14849Penalty46Section 13234Search & Seizure33Section 147

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 95 · Page 1 of 5

32
Section 143(2)28
Section 14424
Disallowance21
Section 245H
Section 271(1)(c)

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

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)

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

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

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

ITA 100/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 12/PUN/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 13/PUN/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 17/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 15/PUN/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

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

ITA 101/PUN/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

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

ITA 102/PUN/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

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

ITA 14/PUN/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

For Respondent: Sri Achal Sharma, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8,10

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. MADHURI SUNIL KOTECHA,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1243/PUN/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Mar 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Achal Sharma
Section 10Section 10(32)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

10(32) of the Act. The assessee its return of income had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of income to reduce tax liability. It is a fit case for levy of penalty and the Assessing Officer has rightly levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The ld. DR pointed that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has deleted penalty

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

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

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

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

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

LEEBA CONSTRUCTION,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gaddekar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

46,184/-. In this case assessment was re-opened u/s 147 of the Act. Subsequently, the case was taken up for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 10.12.2014 and the total income was determined at Rs.40,94,012/- inter-alia by making addition of Rs.18,47,828/- on account

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)

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

SKODA AUTO [ I ] P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2344/PUN/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Jun 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri S.B. Prasad
Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 156Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 92C

46 taxmann.com 100 (Madras)]. d. DCIT vs. Rehau Polymers Pvt. Ltd. [85 taxmann.com 23(Pune)]. e. Sandvik Asia P. Ltd. vs. DCIT [ITA No.465 & 607/PN/14]. f. Walter Tools India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [ITA No.416/PN/14]. g. Soktas India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT [77 taxmann.com 19]. h. JCB India Ltd. vs. DCIT [85 taxmann.com 155 (Delhi)] 8. Thus, Assessing Officer made

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

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

ITA 87/PUN/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned 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.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri J. G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

section 80-IC and u/s 14A of the Act. However, he confirmed the addition on account of disallowance of loss incurred on derivatives. On receipt of the direction of ITAT, the Assessing Officer also passed a consequential order and proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 26.07.2018 of Rs.4,46,97,128/- with reference

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

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

ITA 86/PUN/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned 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.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

For Appellant: Shri J. G. PendseFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80

section 80-IC and u/s 14A of the Act. However, he confirmed the addition on account of disallowance of loss incurred on derivatives. On receipt of the direction of ITAT, the Assessing Officer also passed a consequential order and proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) vide order dated 26.07.2018 of Rs.4,46,97,128/- with reference

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

46,514/-. Therefore, when subsequently on realization of such mistake committed by the appellant, he had come forward for offering the income on account of inadvertent claim of deduction u/s. 54/54F of the Act, the same cannot be construed in form and substance as deliberate and mala-fide furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income within the provisions of section 271

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

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

ITA 1700/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 69A

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