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.

75 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 94(7)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi781Mumbai741Ahmedabad213Jaipur160Bangalore158Chennai156Karnataka128Raipur105Hyderabad101Kolkata101Indore78Pune75Chandigarh53Rajkot48Visakhapatnam40Calcutta35Lucknow27Allahabad26Surat23Cuttack22Guwahati21Amritsar19Patna15Cochin12Agra9Nagpur9Ranchi6Jabalpur4Dehradun3Panaji3Telangana2Rajasthan1Varanasi1SC1

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)106Addition to Income49Section 143(3)46Section 14843Penalty40Section 115B33Section 14733Section 10A27Section 80I22

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1227/PUN/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri R.G. NaharFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Aggarwal
Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. I therefore levy a penalty of Rs.2,20,617/-. 5. The CIT(A) after deliberating upon the issue and various judicial pronouncements had dismissed the plea of assessee. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee first referred

Showing 1–20 of 75 · Page 1 of 4

Section 153A21
Disallowance16
Search & Seizure15

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and secondly because no two limbs are provided in sec. 271AAB. The appellant has not brought to my notice any judgment specific to sec. 271AAB of the Act wherein by applying the ratio of decision in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra), penalty notice was held invalid. Accordingly, the technical grounds raised

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and secondly because no two limbs are provided in sec. 271AAB. The appellant has not brought to my notice any judgment specific to sec. 271AAB of the Act wherein by applying the ratio of decision in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra), penalty notice was held invalid. Accordingly, the technical grounds raised

LEEBA CONSTRUCTION,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 659/PUN/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Aug 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gaddekar
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

94,012/- inter-alia by making addition of Rs.18,47,828/- on account of bogus purchases. On the aforesaid addition of bogus purchases, AO vide order dt.28.07.2015 levied penalty of Rs.5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.06.2016 (in appeal

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

ITA 362/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

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

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar
Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 154Section 269SSection 270ASection 271DSection 40A(3)

u/s 271DA of the IT Act. 10. However, subsequent to all these events the Assessing Officer suddenly changed his mind and rectified his own order by changing the legal basis of the penalty from section 269ST to 269SS of the IT Act. Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer consciously invoked the provision of section 269ST, since according

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1368/PUN/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

94,393/- as income from long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had disclosed income only after enquiries by the Department, which was concealed by him, therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed income also furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 1369/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune15 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

For Appellant: Shri Sanket Joshi
Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

94,393/- as income from long term capital gains. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had disclosed income only after enquiries by the Department, which was concealed by him, therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed income also furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty

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)

94,51,272/- was reduced to Rs.10,96,71,595/-, the quantum to be considered for levy of penalty as per Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) should follow suit and if done, the penalty u/.271(1)(c) has to reduced to Rs.3,55,82,949/-. 4.3. The claim of the appellant is squarely covered by the provisions

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 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. ADVIK HI-TECH PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 38/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Aug 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sharad ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prashant Gudekar
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 80I

94,534/- u/s 80IB(3)(ii) of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the act vide order dt.03.12.2011 and the total income was determined at Rs.6,89,76,670/- whereby the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(3)(ii) of the Act was denied to the assessee and while denying

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 287/PUN/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Shri A. K. Modi
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 1OSection 253Section 80I

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the its income.” Ground no.1 is general and the same is dismissed. 4. Grounds no.2 to 9 relate to the denial of tax holiday u/s 10AA of the 5. Act on the ground that the margins

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 568/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Shri A. K. Modi
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 1OSection 253Section 80I

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the its income.” Ground no.1 is general and the same is dismissed. 4. Grounds no.2 to 9 relate to the denial of tax holiday u/s 10AA of the 5. Act on the ground that the margins

M/S. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 412/PUN/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.412/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Jcit, Range-7, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.568/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-7, अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pune. …. Vs. M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. …. ""थ" / Respondent Pan : Aaact3904F आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S. Honeywell Automation India Limited, 56/57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Hadapsar, Pune-411013. अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aaact3904F …. Vs. Dcit, Circle-11, …. ""थ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Kamal Sawhney & Shri Rhea Amar Revenue By : Shri A. K. Modi सुनवाई क" तारीख / घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.07.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. The Appeals In Ita No.412/Pun/2014 & Ita No.568/Pun/2014 Are The Cross Appeals Filed By The Assessee As Well As By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2009-10. The Appeal In Ita No.287/Pun/2015 Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. First, We Shall Take Up The Said Cross Appeals Relating To The Assessment Year 2009-10 For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Sawhney &For Respondent: Shri A. K. Modi
Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 1OSection 253Section 80I

penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating that the Appellant has neither concealed nor furnished any inaccurate particulars of the its income.” Ground no.1 is general and the same is dismissed. 4. Grounds no.2 to 9 relate to the denial of tax holiday u/s 10AA of the 5. Act on the ground that the margins

ALI AKBAR JAFRI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1844/PUN/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1842 To 1844/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2003-04 Ali Akbar Jafari, Akbar Radiant Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Above Abn Amro Bank, 321, M.G. Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaspj7119F Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 4, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and the penalty levied may kindly be deleted. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of assessee on 21.09.2006. Consequent thereto, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated against the assessee. In the assessment order passed under

ALI AKBAR JAFRI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1842/PUN/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2001-02

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1842 To 1844/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2003-04 Ali Akbar Jafari, Akbar Radiant Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Above Abn Amro Bank, 321, M.G. Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaspj7119F Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 4, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and the penalty levied may kindly be deleted. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of assessee on 21.09.2006. Consequent thereto, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated against the assessee. In the assessment order passed under

ALI AKBAR JAFRI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1843/PUN/2016[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Sept 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1842 To 1844/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2001-02 To 2003-04 Ali Akbar Jafari, Akbar Radiant Plaza, 2Nd Floor, Above Abn Amro Bank, 321, M.G. Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411001 …. Pan: Aaspj7119F Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 4, Pune

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawli
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) is bad in law and the penalty levied may kindly be deleted. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search under section 132 of the Act was conducted at the premises of assessee on 21.09.2006. Consequent thereto, proceedings under section 153A of the Act were initiated against the assessee. In the assessment order passed under

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1493/PUN/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

94,826/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a penalty notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act, wherein, the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied for the reason that disclosure of amount of Rs.1 crore was made only with the intention to buy mental peace and the appellant had made voluntarily disclosure

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1492/PUN/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

94,826/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a penalty notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act, wherein, the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied for the reason that disclosure of amount of Rs.1 crore was made only with the intention to buy mental peace and the appellant had made voluntarily disclosure

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

ITA 1494/PUN/2015[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Apr 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra ShahFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 127Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 234Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 292BSection 68

94,826/-. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued a penalty notice for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 271AAA of the Act, wherein, the assessee submitted that no penalty should be levied for the reason that disclosure of amount of Rs.1 crore was made only with the intention to buy mental peace and the appellant had made voluntarily disclosure

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 931/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune16 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

Section 201Section 234Section 234ESection 246ASection 250

94] ii) 5. In view of the above facts it is pleaded that justice be done either by : Hearing this case purely on merits that provisions of section 234E i) were not applicable to periods prior to 01/06/2015 or The case be remanded back to the Hon. Commissioner of Income ii) Tax (Appeals) - NFAC 1.1 The assessee for A.Y.2014-15