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

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\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\n7\nITA Nos.2169 to 2175/PUN/2025\n\nwas held that if the issue is a debatable issue, penalty u/s\n271(1

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

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 the orders of authorities below. We have also taken into consideration various decisions on which the rival sides have ITA No. 416/PUN/2015

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

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

9. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted grounds/additional ground. 10. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

9. Aggrieved with the said decision of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal with the above extracted grounds/additional ground. 10. According to the ld. AR, the order of the CIT(A) shall have to be set- aside on the legal issue. Highlighting the legal requirement of making a specific reference to the specific limb

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

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

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 and the assessee had paid tax and interest, in absence of any material

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

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

section 9(1)(vii), defines the term ‘fees for technical services’, as under :- 5 Grupo Antolin Irausa S.A. `For the purposes of this clause, "fees for technical services" means any consideration (including any lump sum consideration) for the rendering of any managerial, technical or consultancy services (including the provision of services of technical or other personnel) but does not include

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