DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3) proceedings the AO disallowed excess expenditure of Rs 2,08,09,305/- claimed u/s 36(i)(viia) of the IT Act for which provision was not made in the books of account . The disallowance of expenditure was confirmed by CIT(A) as well as by this Tribunal . On the basis of this disallowance the then AO proceeded

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)

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act vide an order dated 28.03.2023. The Ld. AO notes the following as the reason for imposing the penalty “3.... The assessee has not submitted any supporting documents in response to the notices. Keeping in view the non submission of response by the assessee to the show cause notices, it is surmised that

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

section 115BBE of the IT Act, but the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act. In view of the above, a show cause notice u/s 263 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee stating that the Assessing Officer failed to initiate the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act and therefore

SHARAD BHASKARRAO GAIKWAD,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.917/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17 Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad, The Income Tax T.No.1, Vanai Apartment, V Officer, Gangapur Road, Behind S Nashik. Kulswamini Apart, Nashik – 422005. Pan: Adspg2339R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar-Ca, Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 19/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 02.05.2023 Emanating From Penalty Order Dated 17.02.2022 Passed Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Submission Of Ld.Ar : 2. The Ld.Authorised Representative(Ld.Ar) Of The Assessee Filed Written Submission. Vide Written Submission Ld.Ar Invited Our Sharad Bhaskarrao Gaikwad [A] Attention To The Notice Dated 24.03.2021 For A.Y. 2016-17 Issued By Assessing Officer(Ao) Which Was The First Notice With Reference To The Penalty. Ld.Ar In The Written Submission Explained That Nowhere In The Notice Section 271(1)(C) Is Mentioned. Nowhere In The Notice, The Assessing Officer Has Clarified, Whether It Is For Concealment Of Income Or For Filing Inaccurate Particulars.

271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act 1961, as the Assessing Officer has failed to mention any section in the impugned notice. 4.3 The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rajinder Kumar Somani 125 ITR 756 (Delhi)[30-04-1980] has observed as under regarding initiation of penalty : Quote, “In the present case, unfortunately

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

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

penalty CIT order u/s 271 (1) (c) dated 27/09/2023 for AY 2013-\n2014.\nAgainst the above orders, we had filed appeals in the office of Income tax\nTribunal Pune, (online) within the prescribed time period along with the\nappeal fees.\nWe received acknowledgments for both appeals filed by us, copies of which\nare attached herewith. Since, we are not computer

BNY MELLON INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NATIONAL E-ASSESSMENT CENTRE,, DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 699/Pun/2021 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Bny Mellon International Operations (India) Pvt. Ltd., Tower S3, Level 1, Cybercity, Magarpatta City, Hadapsar, Pune-411013 Pan: Aadcm 9640 E . . . . . . . अपीलाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/S National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi . . . . . . .प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Nitesh Joshi Revenue By : Shri Rakesh Jha सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 03/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/08/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] Dt. 29/10/2021 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] For The Ay 2017-18. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 16

u/s 253(1) of the Act; “The Appellant appeals against the impugned Order dated 29.10.2021 passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre (the AO) under section 143 read with section 144C(13) & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in accordance with section 253(1)(d) of the said Act, on the following amongst other grounds