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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

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, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to delete the penalty

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.

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, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to delete the penalty

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.

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, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to delete the penalty

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

vii. Alok Bhandari & Anr. Vs. ACIT, ITA No. 5747, 5749/Del/2014 (Delhi ITAT) In the above case, it was held that presumption raised by the Explanations to section 271(1)(c) are rebuttable and does not, ipso- facto, result in automatic imposition of penalty. The fact that the entire 'undisclosed income was declared by the appellant in the statement recorded during

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

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 if the issue is a debatable issue, penalty u/s\n271(1

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

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 issue, penalty u/s\n271(1

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

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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.50,95,69,294/- levied by AO u/s 271

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;

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 40(a)(i) of the Act amounting to Rs.41,34,292/- 3. erred in upholding

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

vii) Alrameez Construction (P) Ltd. Vis. CIT (NFAC), Delhi reported in (2023) 152 taxman.com 382 (Mumbal Tribunal). In this case Hon. Mumbai ITAT held that if the penalty notice does not mention which limb of section 270A is attracted and how ingredients of section 270A is satisfied, mere reference to the word "under reporting" or "misreporting" in the assessment order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

vii) Alrameez Construction (P) Ltd. Vis. CIT (NFAC), Delhi reported in (2023) 152 taxman.com 382 (Mumbal Tribunal). In this case Hon. Mumbai ITAT held that if the penalty notice does not mention which limb of section 270A is attracted and how ingredients of section 270A is satisfied, mere reference to the word "under reporting" or "misreporting" in the assessment order

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

vii) Trident Estate (P) Ltd. v. ITO[2021] 127 taxmann.com 360 (Mum. – Trib.) (viii) Krish Infrastructure (P) Ltd. v. ACIT [2013] 35 taxmann.com 38 (Jaipur – Trib.) (ix) Ajay Traders v. DCIT [2017] 81 taxmann.com 463 (Jaipur – Trib.) Findings and Analysis: 5. In this case there was a search u/s 132 of the Act in the case of the assessee

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

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/-.\n\n4) On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee

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

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever

PRIYANVADA AMOL MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

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

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever