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.

93 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 90clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,114Mumbai968Ahmedabad254Jaipur215Bangalore196Kolkata133Hyderabad128Chennai123Karnataka123Raipur114Indore105Pune93Chandigarh64Lucknow55Surat49Amritsar47Allahabad44Cochin41Calcutta34Visakhapatnam30Nagpur22Rajkot18Cuttack14Kerala14Patna13Agra10Dehradun9Guwahati9Jodhpur7Panaji6Ranchi6Jabalpur5Rajasthan3SC3Telangana2Varanasi1Gauhati1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)137Addition to Income68Section 14854Penalty50Section 80I41Section 143(3)34Section 14728Section 10A27Deduction24

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1838/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

Showing 1–20 of 93 · Page 1 of 5

Section 25023
Section 14423
Search & Seizure14

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1839/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

ITA 1837/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Sarang Gudhate, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi, Addl.CIT
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 54B

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

NILESH SUBHASH CHOPDA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

ITA 2088/PUN/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar
Section 133ASection 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

90,201/-. In scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of Rs.1,50,000/- that was declared by the assessee in revised return. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 22-08-2013 levied penalty of Rs.66,160/- u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income on the aforesaid declaration made by assessee

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1325/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. 5. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraph of the penalty order. Assessing Officer has held that Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by means of claiming deduction u/sec.80P

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1328/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Dec 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. 5. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraph of the penalty order. Assessing Officer has held that Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by means of claiming deduction u/sec.80P

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 427/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra) shall not be applicable to the penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 553/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271ASection 80I

Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra) shall not be applicable to the penalty

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 866/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) at an amount of Rs.1,69,081/-. ITA Nos.866 to 869/PUN/2015 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in levying a penalty of Rs.76,705/- by way of enhancement of penalty not levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, assessment under section

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 869/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) at an amount of Rs.1,69,081/-. ITA Nos.866 to 869/PUN/2015 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in levying a penalty of Rs.76,705/- by way of enhancement of penalty not levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, assessment under section

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 868/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) at an amount of Rs.1,69,081/-. ITA Nos.866 to 869/PUN/2015 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in levying a penalty of Rs.76,705/- by way of enhancement of penalty not levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, assessment under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 882/PUN/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) at an amount of Rs.1,69,081/-. ITA Nos.866 to 869/PUN/2015 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in levying a penalty of Rs.76,705/- by way of enhancement of penalty not levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, assessment under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 881/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) at an amount of Rs.1,69,081/-. ITA Nos.866 to 869/PUN/2015 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in levying a penalty of Rs.76,705/- by way of enhancement of penalty not levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, assessment under section

YOG INDUSTRIES LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

ITA 867/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 Oct 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.866 & 867/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2006-07 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.868 & 869/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Aurangabad-431001 …. Pan: Aaacy1238P Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1, Aurangabad आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.881 & 882/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 The Asst. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Circle 3, Aurangabad …. Vs. Yog Industries Ltd., 10, Shriniketan Colony, Jalna Road, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Aurangabad-431001 Pan: Aaacy1238P

For Appellant: None
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) at an amount of Rs.1,69,081/-. ITA Nos.866 to 869/PUN/2015 2. The learned CIT(A) has further erred on facts and in law in levying a penalty of Rs.76,705/- by way of enhancement of penalty not levied by the Assessing Officer. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, assessment under section

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 657/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Sept 2024AY 2014-15

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

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. GHODAWAT FOODS INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1169/PUN/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 May 2018AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Dr. Vivek Aggarwal
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition under reference by mentioning both the limbs of section 271(1)(c) i.e. concealing particulars of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The relevant extract of the satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer for initiating penalty proceedings read as under : “I therefore, hold that an amount of Rs.18,68,90

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

ITA 1316/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &
Section 154Section 250Section 251Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)(A)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex parte order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

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

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

ITA 55/PUN/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai
Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

90,00,000/-. The earnest money of Rs. 7,00,000/- which was returned by the appellant, was inadvertently claimed as expenses/compensation paid to him. Therefore, during assessment proceedings, the appellant had voluntarily offered the same as his income for inclusion with the total income. The appellant also contended before the AO during assessment proceedings and also penalty proceedings that

DATTARAJ MADHUKAR WAFGAONKAR,,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 525/PUN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Mrs. Shabana Parveen
Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 271(1)(c)

90,329/-. The income declared by the assessee was accepted by the Assessing Officer. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) were initiated for concealing particulars of income in respect of declaration made by the assessee during survey proceedings. A bare perusal of provisions of section

ARJUN SHAMDAS BHAGTANI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2495/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Oct 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: Shri C.H. NaniwadekarFor Respondent: Mrs. Shweta Mishra
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)

u/s. 271(1)(c), the assessee filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide impugned order rejected the contentions of the assessee and confirmed levy of penalty. Now, the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal assailing the upholding of penalty. 3. Shri C.H. Naniwadekar appearing on behalf of the assessee