ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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

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

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

14A to Rs.1,82,234/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He noted that the assessee in its computation of income has disallowed meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as expenditure incurred for earning the dividend income to the tune of Rs.24,57,376/-. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section

M/S. PATANKAR WIND FARM PVT.LTD,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) vide order dated 05-03-2015 only in respect of disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act. No penalty was levied qua disallowance u/s. 80IA(4) of the Act. 2.1 The ld. AR further contended that while initiating penalty proceedings on disallowance u/s. 14A, the Assessing Officer mentioned both the limbs of section

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PRABHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was deleted by observing as under :- “9. We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea. However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars. In Webster's Dictionary, the word "inaccurate" has been defined

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

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

14A) Aggrieved with the penalty order, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide consolidated order dt.15.01.2015 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-4/Cir.6/103/13-14) 430/09-10) granted partial relief to the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue are now in appeal before

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 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 : 04-06-2025 O R D E R

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of disallowance of provision for leave encashment of Rs.11,08,482/- which was claimed by the assessee by debiting the same to the Profit and Loss Account. It is an admitted fact that the assessee in the note at the end of the computation has stated that the provisions of section

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in relying on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petro Products based on entirely different facts as it pertains to penalty on disallowance of interest u/s 14A

JAIN NILESH SHANTILAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

14A of the Act (Rs.7,861/-). Thus, disallowance aggregating to Rs.1,77,52,357/- was made. On the addition of Rs.74,60,570/- made on account of under valuation of excess stock of gold and silver and disallowance of Rs.3,49,480/- made on account of unaccounted debtors, AO vide order dt.27.06.2013 levied penalty of Rs.24,13,305/- u/s 271

KALAVATI HANUMANDAS AGRAWAL,,DHULE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, DHULE

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

14A of the Act stating that “….. it is a case of concealed income/unexplained particulars of expenditure …..” (both the limbs mentioned and specific limb not ticked). (para 5 of the assessment order). 4. In the penalty order, the Assessing Officer without mentioning any limb of clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act levied the penalty of Rs.23,016/- u/s