M/S. M M BROTHERS,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) on the basis of which the penalty proceedings were initiated was neither communicated by the A.O. in the asst. order nor in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and therefore, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed in the instant case was bad in law in view of the 2 law laid down

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

70,490/-in hands of appellant. 7.9 Further exclusion provided under section 270A(6)(a) is not applicable in view of 270A(8) as far as cases of misreporting of income like present case is concerned. Section 270A (8) reads as "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) or sub-section (7), where under reported income is in consequence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

u/s 271(l)(a) of the Act, for delay in filing of return. Though the assessee filed certain explanation, the AO overlooked it. The AO presumed that the assessee had no reason to offer for the delay, and therefore he was satisfied that the assessee had without any reasonable cause failed to file the return in time

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

70,180.00. Disallowance of Rs.5,12,450.00 under section 14A of the Act 4. erred in making disallowance of Rs.5,12,450.00 under section 14A r.w.r 8D of the Act against dividend income exempt under section 10(34) of the Act, without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case; 5. erred in not appreciating the suo-moto disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

70 (SC), the Ld. AR submitted that as per the said decision the due date of issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2015-16 as applicable to the instant case is 31.03.2022, however the notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 and thus said notice issued by the Ld. JAO/AO u/s

RUPESH MAHENDRA KANKARIYA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 1, AHMEDNAHGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.465/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rupesh Mahendra Kankariya, Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Ahmednagar. B Namrata Marbles, Tilak Road, Ahmednagar- 414001. Pan : Arspk8493L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Kimaya Kudva Revenue By Shri Milind Debaje : Date Of Hearing 22.04.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In; I. Concluding That The Appellant'S Request For Condonation Of Delay In Filing The Appeal Was Without Any Reasonable Cause, Rejecting The Application & Dismissing The Appeal In Limine. Ii. Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte Without Adjudicating The Ground Challenging Levy Of Penalty Of Appeal On Merits.

section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was issued and served upon the assessee electronically to attend on 20.04.2022, however the assessee again remained absent and therefore by an order dated 12.09.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs. 11,70

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-\"\n6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA P. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

70,990/- by the Ld. AO vide draft assessment order passed u/s\n143(3)/254 r.w.s. 144B r.w.s. 144C(1) dated 31.03.2023 which was\nchallenged by the assessee by filing objections before the Ld. DRP.\n2.3 Before the Ld. DRP, the assessee raised the following objections\npertaining to allocation of RHQ charges :\n1.\n“6.1. Issue: On the facts

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

Section 16(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggregate allowances of Rs. 2,02,500, for the year under appeal after applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the Appellant. 5.2 The appellant respectfully submits that the above non- allowances of other deductions claimed of Rs. 2,02,500 is not justified

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

Section 16(iii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, aggregate allowances of Rs. 2,02,500, for the year under appeal after applying the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of the Appellant. 5.2 The appellant respectfully submits that the above non- allowances of other deductions claimed of Rs. 2,02,500 is not justified

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 43CA is not sustainable. 5.5 Whereas, the appellant has not submitted necessary documentary evidences as per the sub section (4) of the Act that, the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by the appellant from the said buyers of the flat by any made other than cash on or before the date of agreement

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

Section 56(2)(viii). Therefore, in accordance with the above, 50% of Rs.2,60,05,088 amounting to Rs.1,30,02,544/- is treated as deduction and the balance amount of Rs.1,30,02,544/- is hereby to be treated as income from other sources. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for concealment of income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income are initiated separately.\"\n5.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the\naddition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the\nerstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in\nwhose name

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

70,798 under u/s 14A of the Act r.w rule 8D(2)(ii) be deleted. Ground 10: Additional relief under section 90 On the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the AU based on the directions of Ld. DRP erred in disregarding Appellant’s claim for additional relief under section

JIVARAM MAGAJI CHAOUDHARY,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE 7, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1392/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Jivaram Magaji Chaoudhary, Vs. Acit, Circle-7, Pune. Plot No.4, Road No.5, Snehdeep Palace, Tingrenagar, Pune- 411032. Pan : Aalpc3973B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. L. Jain Revenue By Shri Uma Shankar Prasad : Date Of Hearing : 26.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of 48 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeal. In This Regard, The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Along With An Affidavit. We Are Satisfied With The Explanation Of The Assessee That He Was Prevented By Reasonable

70,423/-. The assessment proceedings were completed u/s 143(3) on 12.01.2015 assessing the total income at Rs.12,99,210/-. Subsequently, it was observed that during the course of search operation the assessee has disclosed income of Rs.68,32,775/- u/s 69B of the IT Act for assessment year 2010-11 and while calculating short term capital gain on sale