BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

57 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 69Aclear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai245Delhi197Jaipur141Ahmedabad110Pune57Indore50Hyderabad48Rajkot48Surat45Chandigarh39Bangalore33Lucknow24Chennai24Agra24Kolkata20Amritsar18Nagpur18Jabalpur11Patna10Raipur10Visakhapatnam9Cuttack8Dehradun7Cochin6Guwahati6Jodhpur4Allahabad3Varanasi2Rajasthan1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)87Section 69A61Section 14760Section 14855Addition to Income47Section 69B30Penalty28Section 14422Section 25021Cash Deposit

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 102/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Showing 1–20 of 57 · Page 1 of 3

20
Unexplained Money17
Section 143(3)16
ITA 95/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 100/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 105/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 99/PUN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

ITA 96/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Mar 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Pathak /For Respondent: Shri Hitendra Ninawe
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C & 69D. 18. It is necessary to refer to Explanation 5A which reads as under: ―Explanation 5A – Where, in the course of a search initiated under section 132 on or before the 1st day of June 2007, the assessee is found to be the owner of (i) Any money, bullion, jeweler or other valuable article

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

ITA 1023/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel
Section 115BSection 132Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 263Section 271ASection 69A

69A of the IT Act and the same was taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the IT Act, but the Assessing Officer failed to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC of the IT Act. In view of the above, a show cause notice u/s 263 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee stating that the Assessing

JAGDISH BHAGWAN MIRCHANDANI,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2018AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

69A of the Act on account of unsecured loans. In the present case, the perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) reveals that in the assessment order AO had recorded satisfaction for levy of penalty on account of concealment of income. Thereafter in the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, AO held that assessee

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

ITA 1700/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

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:

For Appellant: Shri Tanzil PadvekarFor Respondent: Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT
Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 270A(2)(a)Section 270A(9)(e)Section 274Section 69A

69A r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act since these are professional receipts. He, however, initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting as per the provisions of section 270A(9)(e) of the Act. While doing so, he observed that the revised return filed by the assessee on 30.06.2020 is (a) beyond the due date

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 NANDED, NANDED vs. SATYAWAN ARJUNRAO SHINDE, OSMANABAD

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

ITA 2109/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 Feb 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri B. P. JajuFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 133ASection 2Section 270ASection 270A(1)Section 274Section 9

69A subject to special rate of tax u/s 115BEE and also other additions amounting in all to Rs.64,65,000/-. The Assessing Officer in the above assessment order also initiated penalty u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAC(1) of the IT Act. 4. The assessee preferred appeal against the above assessment order and Ld. CIT(A), Pune-12 partly allowed the appeal

DEELIP V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1259/PUN/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deelip Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Acit, Cc-(1), 1, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Vs Nashik. Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abcpk 8441 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 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)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2010-11 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.09.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ [A] Grounds Of Appeal 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard.

Section 127Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68

69A of the Act. The Assessing Officer(AO) also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

ITA 1258/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune08 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1258/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Leelavati Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Dy.Commissioner Of 4, Teachers Colonyh, Ring Vs Income Tax, Cc(1), Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Nashik. Pan: Alvpk 4435 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 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)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2012-13 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “5. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard. Without Prejudice To The Above & Alternatively. 6. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) On The Basis Of Notice U/S

Section 127Section 144Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292BSection 68Section 69A

69A of the Act. The ITA No.1258/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2012-13 Leelavati Vijaykumar Kotecha Vs. DCIT, CC-(1), Nashik [A] Assessing Officer(AO) also levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order of the AO, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty under section 271

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

ITA 1294/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 127Section 139Section 153ASection 68

section 132, shall abate. Thus, on the date of search, there was still some time with the department for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 assessment year under consideration, no assessment was pending or it is a case

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

ITA 1295/PUN/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Apr 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nirupama Kotru
Section 127Section 139Section 153ASection 68

section 132, shall abate. Thus, on the date of search, there was still some time with the department for issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13 assessment year under consideration, no assessment was pending or it is a case

RAJENDRA VENKAT REDDY,BANER vs. DY. CIT CIR-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 1869/PUN/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jun 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1869/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Rajendra Venkat Reddy, Vs. Dcit, Circle-2, Pune. Row House No.7, S.No.39, Sky Aquilaa, Hissa No.2, Baner, Pune-411045. Pan : Aijpr4537L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Date Of Hearing : 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 3, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 20.09.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Ao Erred In Levying & And Ld. Cit(A) Erred Confirming The Levy Of Penalty Of Rs. 4,44,018/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act. 2. The Learned Ao Erred In Levying Penalty Without Recording Proper Satisfaction. 3. The Appellant Craves Its Right To Add To Or Alter The Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or After The Course Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69Section 69A

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Assessing Officer sought to levy penalty in respect of addition of Rs.15,00,000/- being unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts held by the appellant. The addition was purportedly made u/s 69 or section 69A

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

ITA 2113/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

69A of the Act for unexplained money. ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

ITA 2112/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

For Appellant: Shri Nemin ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69A

69A of the Act for unexplained money. ITA No. 2112/PUN/2025 is against the levy of penalty of Rs. 71,75,281/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. We note that the assessee is an individual and in the reassessment proceedings carried out by Ld. AO based on the information about cash deposit in saving bank account with

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

69A of the Act provides for no relief on account of addition made under that section towards excess cash, jewellery or valuable article, etc., the provisions of section 69B do not put forth any such restrictions. 4. However, the explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the Assessing Officer. He referred to the provisions of section 115BBE