D.R.K. CONSTRUCTION,,SATARA vs. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

271-I] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA] or [section 272B or] [sub-section (1) [or sub-section (1A)] of section 272BB or][sub-section(1) of section 272BBB or] clause (b) of sub-section (1) or clause (b) or clause

MOHAN N. SHETTY,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

u/s 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the order levying penalty under section 271

UNIQUE AUTOMOBILES ,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.477/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Unique Automobiles, The Cit(A), Kolhapur. 32, Jayraj, Near Tata Petrol Vs Pump, Vishrambag, Sangli – . 416416. Pan: Aaafu 3563 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jansnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur’S Order Dated 01.11.2017 Passed In Appeal No. Sli/093/10- 11, In Proceedings U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

273B. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of 24[clause (b) of sub-section (1) of| 25 f section 271. Section 271A, 26 [section 271AA,] section 271B 26a[, section 271 BA], 27 [section 27IBB.]section 271C , section 27ID, section 271E , 28 [ section 271F. 29 1 section 271 FA ,] 30[ section 271FB, ] 3.1 [ section 271G.1] clause (c) or clause

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

BAPUJIBUWA NAGARI SAH PAT SANSTHA LTD.,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.946/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Bapujibuwa Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, S.No.10/2, Dagadu Patil Nagar, Thergaon, Pune – 411033. Pan : Aaaab8597J. बनाम / V/S. The Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax, ……""यथ" / Respondent Range – 9, Pune.

u/s 271D is perfectly justified and there is no reasonable cause as made out by the assessee.” '\.. 15. The learned AR in her rejoinder submitted that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court cited by the learned DR are distinguishable from the facts of the present case. 16. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties

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 ,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

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"

273B which provides that no penalty under Section 271 E shall be imposed for contravention of Section 269T if, reasonable cause for such contravention is shown. As already discussed in the present case there are no genuine business exigencies that have forced them to issue preference shares at an inflated value compared to the actual market value of the shares

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

VIDHU PURI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 702/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Vidhu Puri H 604, Maestros, Salunke Vihar Road, Wanwadi, Pune-411 040 Pan : Afupp4746F .......अपीलाथी / Appellant

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is bad in law and invalid for the reason that the show cause notice u/s 274 of the Act does not specify the charge against the assessee as to whether it is for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The charge has to be specific

M/S. SUN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3015 To 3017/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Central Circle-2, Sharanpur Road, Nashik Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Nashik – 422 002 Pan : Aahcs5734P Appellant Respondent

u/s. 142(1) dt. 11-08-2015 was issued seeking compliance on 21-08-2015. Since the assessee did not appear, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee pleaded for a reasonable cause before the ld. CIT(A) through written submissions, that have been reproduced in para 3.1 of his order

M/S. SUN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3015 To 3017/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Central Circle-2, Sharanpur Road, Nashik Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Nashik – 422 002 Pan : Aahcs5734P Appellant Respondent

u/s. 142(1) dt. 11-08-2015 was issued seeking compliance on 21-08-2015. Since the assessee did not appear, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee pleaded for a reasonable cause before the ld. CIT(A) through written submissions, that have been reproduced in para 3.1 of his order

M/S. SUN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2, , NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.3015 To 3017/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10 M/S. Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, F 1/2, Suyojit Heights, Central Circle-2, Sharanpur Road, Nashik Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhavan, Nashik – 422 002 Pan : Aahcs5734P Appellant Respondent

u/s. 142(1) dt. 11-08-2015 was issued seeking compliance on 21-08-2015. Since the assessee did not appear, the AO imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- u/s.271(1)(b) of the Act. The assessee pleaded for a reasonable cause before the ld. CIT(A) through written submissions, that have been reproduced in para 3.1 of his order

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