VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly, the alternate plea of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2874/PUN/2025

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly, the alternate plea of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2874/PUN/2025

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly, the alternate plea of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2874/PUN/2025

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly, the alternate plea of the assessee is allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No.2874/PUN/2025

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.

loss to the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the Assessing Officer, the discount/concession is being given out of the profits earned by the cooperative society. So the expenses allowable u/s 40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition

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.

loss to the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the Assessing Officer, the discount/concession is being given out of the profits earned by the cooperative society. So the expenses allowable u/s 40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition

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.

loss to the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the Assessing Officer, the discount/concession is being given out of the profits earned by the cooperative society. So the expenses allowable u/s 40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition

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.

loss to the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the Assessing Officer, the discount/concession is being given out of the profits earned by the cooperative society. So the expenses allowable u/s 40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition

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.

loss to the assessee. Accordingly, in view of the Assessing Officer, the discount/concession is being given out of the profits earned by the cooperative society. So the expenses allowable u/s 40A(2)(a) of the IT Act. The case of Revenue in this regard was that this is the appropriation of profits and accordingly the Assessing Officer made addition

SAKAL PAPER LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

losses of earlier years of 80IA unit are set off there would be no profit for A.Y. 2007-08 to be claimed u/s 80IA(4). Since assessee has claimed ineligible deduction u/s 80IA(4), penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

set of facts, no penalty was levied for A.Y. 2020-21 by the learned A.O. and therefore, the assessee submits that for this year also there was no reason to levy the penalty since the facts were identical for both the years. 9] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

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

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

set of facts, no penalty was levied for A.Y. 2020-21 by the learned A.O. and therefore, the assessee submits that for this year also there was no reason to levy the penalty since the facts were identical for both the years. 9] The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal

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

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

loss to the assessee which the assessee genuinely believe that the same is deductible from the taxable income of the assessee. 2. The assessee craves the right to add, alter, modify, annual or all together cancel any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.” The assessee also raised the following additional ground :- 5. “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred

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

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

loss to the assessee which the assessee genuinely believe that the same is deductible from the taxable income of the assessee. 2. The assessee craves the right to add, alter, modify, annual or all together cancel any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal.” The assessee also raised the following additional ground :- 5. “1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

Loss Account (b) payments to respective sub-contractors were made through banking channel, hence they were genuine in nature. The respondent assessee however expressed its inability to produce full details including copies of sub-contracts and confirmation from the respective sub-contractors which could have effectively testified the veracity & genuineness of sub-contracting & its expenditure. We further found that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

Loss Account (b) payments to respective sub-contractors were made through banking channel, hence they were genuine in nature. The respondent assessee however expressed its inability to produce full details including copies of sub-contracts and confirmation from the respective sub-contractors which could have effectively testified the veracity & genuineness of sub-contracting & its expenditure. We further found that