BHUPENDRA S. SHAH,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270/-. Since, the additional income of Rs.12,00,000/- is detected and disclosed by the assessee as result of search action, the penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) are separately initiated.” 6. A perusal of satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer reveal that there is no mention of any charge for which penalty is being levied under

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1951/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner E-25, 26 & 27, Bhosari Midc, Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune – 411026. Pune. Pan: Aaacl 1978 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandani Shah – Ar(S) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune, Dated 01.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2007-08 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Erroneous Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Circle - 9 (‘The Ld.Ao’) Of Levying Penalty, Being 100% Of Tax On The Addition To Returned Income Amounting To Inr 38,37,270, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rs.38,37,270/-. 2. Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Are Invalid On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Ao For

270/-. The Appellant prays that it has exercised due diligence in determining the arms' length price of international transactions and thus provisions of explanation 7 to section 271(1)(c) should not apply. Accordingly, penalty levied in this regard ought be deleted. 4. Erroneous levy of penalty for furnishing of inaccurate particulars u/s

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

KALWAN MERCHANTS CO-OP BANK LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

270/- inter-alia by making additions of Rs.8,57,368/- on account of excess claim of deduction u/s 36(i)(viia) and Rs.4,42,168/- on account of interest on building fund, reserve fund and deposits etc. On the aforesaid additions, AO vide order dt. 22.01.2016 passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levied penalty of Rs.4

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

RADHAMADHAV REALCON PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE - 10,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आय आयकर आय आय कर कर अपील कर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.137/Pun/2018 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 वष"

270 (Bom.) and Lodha Builders Pvt. Ltd. & Others Vs. ACIT in ITA No.476/M/2014 and held that the amount received by the assessee from VSK constitutes the loans or advances. Thus, the Assessing Officer held that repayment of loan by resorting to Journal entries, constitutes the contravention of provisions of section 269T of the Act. Accordingly, AO applied the ratio laid

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

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.31,14,41,362/-. 4) On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed

RAMCHANDRA DADA SHINDE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2461/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2006-07

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act by holding that the assessee has concealed his income and hence, the A.O. was justified in levying the penalty. 3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the addition made of Rs.2,00,50,000/- on which the penalty was levied was made and surmises and presumptions and therefore, no penalty could

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

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

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.31,14,41,362/-. 4) On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 11.1 The learned DCIT erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 3. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

GRUPO ANTOLIN IRAUSA S.A.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Groupo Antolin Irausa S.A. Vs. Ddit C/O. B-25, Midc, (International Taxation)-1, Ranjangaon, Shirur, Pune Pune 412 220 Pan : Aadcg9626L Appellant Respondent

section 9(1)(vii), defines the term ‘fees for technical services’, as under :- 5 Grupo Antolin Irausa S.A. `For the purposes of this clause, "fees for technical services" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include

GRUPO ANTOLIN INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1207/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Grupo Antolin India Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune. Limited, B 25, Midc, Ranjangaon, Taluka: Shirur, Pune- 412220. Pan : Aaaca6730G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri J. D. Mistri Revenue By : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Cit(A)- 13, Pune’S Order Dated 10.02.2017 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-13/Dcit, Circle-1(2), Pune/45/2013-14/606 Involving Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. The Assessee Pleads The Following Substantive Grounds In The Instant Appeal :-

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :- 2 “1:0 Transfer Pricing adjustment of Rs. 3,35,16,306/- while determining the Arm's Length Price ["ALP"] of international transactions in respect