SHRI MAHALAXMI CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2149/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 167-B, Mangalwar Peth, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur - 416012 …. Pan: Aaats3679R Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Kolhapur

u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of such claim is highly debatable issue and therefore no penalty is leviable. 2 Shri Mahalaxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271

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. 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that the assessee has availed higher claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.\"\n\n46. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:\n\n“7.6.1 The appellant in his written submission has furnished that these provisions not available and already added back in the computation of the income

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE, , RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OP BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RATNAGIRI CIRCLE,, RATNAGIRI vs. THE RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD,, RATNAGIRI

In the result, all the appeals of Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1631 To 1634 & 1674/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2004-05, 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2008-09

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Being aggrieved by the levy of penalty, an appeal was filed before the CIT(A), who vide impugned order deleted the penalty by holding that mere disallowance of claim does not entail levy of penalty placing reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproduct

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

36(i)(viia) of the Act and Rs.4,42,168/- on account of interest on building fund, reserve fund and deposits etc. The perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act reveals that in the assessment order AO had not recorded clear satisfaction as to whether assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income or has concealed particulars

MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, penalty appeal is allowed and quantum appeal is

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to Rs.122,56,95,246/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return reducing its amount of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) to Rs.25,21,93,0828/-, being the amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts as per the books of account. The Assessing Officer did not accept

MAHARASHTRA GRAMIN BANK,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, AURANGABAD

In the result, penalty appeal is allowed and quantum appeal is

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

u/s. 36(1)(viia) of the Act amounting to Rs.122,56,95,246/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed a revised return reducing its amount of deduction u/s.36(1)(viia) to Rs.25,21,93,0828/-, being the amount of provision for bad and doubtful debts as per the books of account. The Assessing Officer did not accept

RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 3, RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Act, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on in merit in levying interest u/s. 234A, 2348, 234C of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

RATNAGIRI DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED,RATNAGIRI vs. ITO WARD 2, RATNAGIRI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Astha Chandra & Shree Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the Act, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in law and on in merit in levying interest u/s. 234A, 2348, 234C of the Act. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

36 ITR 215 (SC). Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court is very much relevant in the instant case for the following legal propositions: “Expenditure incurred for getting shares registered in the name of the assessee and for conducting suits filed for amending the rules of the company