SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed and it 271(1)(C) of the IT Act was not imposable.) 11. Accordingly

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed and it 271(1)(C) of the IT Act was not imposable.) 11. Accordingly

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed and it 271(1)(C) of the IT Act was not imposable.) 11. Accordingly

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

9. The revenue has not brought any contrary binding precedent to our notice. It is transpired from the assessment order that the assessee has filed the return for the first time u/s 153A of the Act and no return was filed before initiation of search. Therefore, in terms of section 153A of the Act, return filed u/s 153A

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

vi)\nCIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR\n722 (Bombay).\n(vii)\nCIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.,\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed\nby the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed and it\n\nwas held that if the issue is a debatable

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

vi)\nCIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR\n722 (Bombay).\n(vii)\nCIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.,\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed\nby the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon'ble\nHigh Court of Punjab & Haryana was dismissed and it\n\n7\nITA Nos.2169 to 2175/PUN/2025\n\nwas held that

AQUATECH SYSTEMS (ASIA) PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

vi. M/s. Maharaj Garage & Company Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Income Tax Reference No. 21 of 2008 decided on 22-08-2017; vii. MAK Data Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax in Civil Appeal No. 9772 of 2013 decided on 30-10-2013. 5. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KARAD SATARA vs. THE KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD, KARAD SATARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 143(3) proceedings the AO disallowed excess expenditure of Rs 2,08,09,305/- claimed u/s 36(i)(viia) of the IT Act for which provision was not made in the books of account . The disallowance of expenditure was confirmed by CIT(A) as well as by this Tribunal . On the basis of this disallowance the then AO proceeded

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

271(1)(c) but not in the context of 270A, hence not applicable to facts of present case. Hence, I am of considered view that AO has rightly levied penalty u/s 270A of Rs.9,14,842/-. Consequently, Grounds of Appeal relevant to the issue are Dismissed. 5. Dissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

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

VI-A of the IT Act & claimed refund. It was Kishor Patil who cheated all the employees & claimed excess deduction in their returns without informing them for his own benefit. The fact of the cheating came in light when a survey u/s 133A was conducted at the premises of Mr Kishor Patil. When the fact that this kind of fraud

GRUPO ANTOLIN IRAUSA S.A.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Groupo Antolin Irausa S.A. Vs. Ddit C/O. B-25, Midc, (International Taxation)-1, Ranjangaon, Shirur, Pune Pune 412 220 Pan : Aadcg9626L Appellant Respondent

penalty is that with manual machines we lose much more time for calibrating so that we usually work with these machines at some ratio’. Finally, the assessee directed in its next communication to “set machine to a given nominal value and pour 5-10 times and record the values. Calculate CpK and let us know whether

SKODA AUTO [ I ] P.LTD,AURANGABAD vs. ACIT, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

vi. Soktas India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No. 206/PN/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 decided on 09-12-2016. 4. On the other hand Shri S.B. Prasad representing the Department vehemently defended the assessment order and prayed for dismissing the additional grounds raised by the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that due procedure has been followed

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

VI-A of the IT Act & claimed refund. It was Kishor Patil\nwho cheated all the employees & claimed excess deduction in their\nreturns without informing them for his own benefit. The fact of the\ncheating came in light when a survey u/s 133A was conducted at the\npremises of Mr Kishor Patil. When the fact that this kind of fraud

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 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(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in 'dew of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief Facts of the case : 2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessee filed Original Return of Income electronically on 02/08/2016 for A.Y.2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.7,05,190/-. In the original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

vi) Amruta Organics Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, ITA No. 1121/PN/2011 (ITAT-Pune); (vii) DCIT Vs. National Textile Corporation, ITA No.5757/Del/2015. In all the above cases, the penalty levied was held to be bad-in-law and hence deleted either holding that the voluntary offer of income could not constitute the concealment of income or where agreed addition was made

NEHA SAMYAK LODHA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

vi] s. 271(1)(c) or in the penalty order i.e. the proceedings are initiated for 'furnishing inaccurate particulars' or 'concealing particulars' of income. 2. In the assessment order the A.O. has not at all specified any charge and the notice u/s. 271(1)(c) is issued by the A.O. under both the charges (page No. 1 of paper book

CMA CGM AGENCIES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,ELPHINSTONE ROAD-WEST, MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1454/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Cma Cgm Agencies India Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Private Limited, One International Centre, Tower-3, 8Th Floor, Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphistone Road- West, Mumbai- 400013. Pan : Aadcc3951G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mahenov Thakkar Revenue By : Shri Nitin Patil Date Of Hearing : 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.11.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Disallowance Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Act Amounting To Rs.4,86,77,518/- 1. Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Learned Assessing Officer (‘Ao’) & Holding That Payment Of It Services To Be In The Nature Of Royalty Under Section 9(1)(Vi) Of The Act/ Fees For Technical Services Under Section 9(1)(Vii) Of The Act;

vi) of the Act/ fees for technical services under section 9(1)(vii) of the Act; 2 2. erred in not following the ruling of the Hon'ble Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the Appellant's own case for AY 2012-13 which has decided the issue in favour of the Appellant; Disallowance under section

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 14A were inserted by finance Act, 2001 w. e .f. 01/04/1962, whereas in extant case disallowance relates to wrongful deduction claim which was confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT. 4. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing