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 271 of the Act. He accordingly submitted that the Assessing Officer was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting the same. 22. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee on the other hand while supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) in quashing

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

200% u/s 270A(8) of the Act for under reporting of income as a consequence of misreporting. In the penalty order, the AO alleged that assessee has claimed deduction of Rs.99,58,838/- on account of Education Cess which is not allowable expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Further, the AO has placed reliance of amendment made

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. 5. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraph of the penalty order. Assessing Officer has held that Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by means of claiming deduction u/sec.80P

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. 5. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraph of the penalty order. Assessing Officer has held that Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by means of claiming deduction u/sec.80P

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

200% penalty(ies) in assessee’s case going by sec.270A(8) on one hand; whereas they nowhere specify the corresponding limb(s) of “under-reporting of income in consequence of any mis-reporting” thereof; as prescribed sub-sec. (9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced with this situation, I adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

200%) of the amount of tax payable on under reported income." Thus, provisions of section 270A (6) are not applicable in a case where there is misreporting of income. Hence, claim of appellant that since income returned u/s 148 has been accepted by AO, no penalty u/s 270A can be levied can't be accepted. 7.10 It is noticed that

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

200% penalty(ies) in assessee's case going by sec.270A(8)\non one hand; whereas they nowhere specify the corresponding limb(s)\nof “under-reporting of income in consequence of any mis-reporting”\nthereof; as prescribed sub-sec. (9) containing (a) to (f) clauses. Faced\nwith this situation, I adopt stricter interpretation as per Commissioner\nof Customs (Imports), Mumbai

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:

200% of Rs.35,92,000/-. 2. On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in levying Penalty and passing order under Section 270A of the Act, when the alleged addition has been accepted by the Learned Assessing Officer (in short Ld. AO) and Ld. CIT(A) wherein while allowing ground No. 3 in the quantum proceeding before

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

u/s 270A of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹1,64,392/- i.e. @200% of tax sought to be evaded for under-reporting of income holding it is in the nature of mis-reporting . 5. On an unsuccessful attempt before the first appellate authority, the appellant has set-up a present case for reversal of aforestated penalty on a solitary

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

u/s 270A of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹1,64,392/- i.e. @200% of tax sought to be evaded for under-reporting of income holding it is in the nature of mis-reporting . 5. On an unsuccessful attempt before the first appellate authority, the appellant has set-up a present case for reversal of aforestated penalty on a solitary

CHAITALI HOTELS,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

200% of tax payable on underreported income in consequence of misreporting by recording as under: “6.1 In the present case, while completing the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the Act on the income of Rs.5,06,267/- assessed u/s 68 of the Act. During the appeal proceedings, this

MAHESH VISHWANATH BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1813 & 1814/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. 3Rd Floor, Bhoir Building, Keshav Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 410033. Pan : Aihpb9631K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: These Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.07.2024 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed On 29.01.2014 U/S 144 & Penalty Order Framed On 17.07.2024 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune Respectively.

200/-. 4. Against the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the additions made by the Assessing Officer and also the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal was barred by limitation of 1285 days. Reason for the delay as stated in the affidavit placed on record

MAHESH VISHWANATH BHOIR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE

In the result, both the above captioned appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1813 & 1814/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mahesh Vishwanath Bhoir, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. 3Rd Floor, Bhoir Building, Keshav Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 410033. Pan : Aihpb9631K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 29.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Manish Borad, Am: These Appeals Filed At The Instance Of Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 10.07.2024 Which Are Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Framed On 29.01.2014 U/S 144 & Penalty Order Framed On 17.07.2024 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2011-12 By The Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune Respectively.

200/-. 4. Against the additions made by Ld. Assessing Officer, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the additions made by the Assessing Officer and also the levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appeal was barred by limitation of 1285 days. Reason for the delay as stated in the affidavit placed on record

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SMT ANJALI PRAPHULL SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience