VANDANA ANIL BALADAHRE,GONDIA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANVEL

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं / Ita No.1521/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Vandana Anil Baladhare Vs Ito, Panvel Near Ramdeo Colony, Fulchur, Gondia-441601 Maharashtra Pan-Aqzpb8058L Appellant Respondent

section 273B of the Act which includes the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act, no penalty shall

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act of Rs.1,01,75,465/- in respect of deposits from its members. 2. The Id CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant Society is based in rural area and most of the members are illiterate and agriculturists having transactions below Rs 20000/-. 3. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act of Rs.1,01,75,465/- in respect of deposits from its members. 2. The Id CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant Society is based in rural area and most of the members are illiterate and agriculturists having transactions below Rs 20000/-. 3. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts

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

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

u/s 271D of the Income Tax Act of Rs.1,01,75,465/- in respect of deposits from its members. 2. The Id CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant Society is based in rural area and most of the members are illiterate and agriculturists having transactions below Rs 20000/-. 3. The learned CIT erred in law and on facts

BHASKAR RAJARAM THORAT,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 273B of the Act, if he proves that there was a reasonable cause for the said failure. We, therefore, hold that the assessee deserves relief in the light of the provisions u/s. 273B of the Act. Accordingly, finding of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and penalty u/s. 271

DEVRAJ VISHWASRAO JADHAV,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3, SATARA

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 273B of the Act, we are of the view that penalty for the first non- compliance deserves to be confirmed and for the subsequent non-compliance penalty deserves to be deleted. We therefore restrict the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act to one default as against three defaults treated by the ld.AO. Accordingly, the 3 Devraj Vishwasrao

VIBHAV DILIP METHA,AHILYANAGAR vs. ITO, WRD-2, AHILYANAGAR, AHILYANAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2074/Pun/2025 Assessment Year 2014-15

271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act 1961. 3. That the learned CIT(A), Pune 11, vide his appellate order dt. 12.08.2024 confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer of Income Tax, Ward -2. Ahmednagar referred above. 4. That I am living at rural area where there is no proper guidance available for our tax matters. With the available