RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

271(1)(c)\namounting to Rs.2,43,36,840 being income offered during the course of\nSurvey and shown in ITR filed post the Survey proceeding.\n2.\nThe learned I-T Authorities erred in law and on facts in levying a penalty\nu/s_271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.2,43,36,840 for concealment of income\nwithout appreciating the fact that

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 dated 31.03.2016 where the Assessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2020 wherein he has initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 13. The Ld. Counsel

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 dated 31.03.2016 where the Assessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2020 wherein he has initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 13. The Ld. Counsel

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 dated 31.03.2016 where the Assessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer on 27.03.2020 wherein he has initiated penalty proceedings for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 13. The Ld. Counsel

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. It is this order against which\nthe assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.\nWhen the present appeal was called for hearing, none\nappeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any application for\nadjournment was filed despite due service of notice. Therefore, we\nproceed to decide the appeal on the basis

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

u/s 271 r.w.s.274 dated 31.03.2016 where the\nAssessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of\nthe paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by\nthe Assessing Officer on 27.03.2020 wherein he has initiated penalty proceedings\nfor furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.\n13. The Ld. Counsel

YOGESH SHIVAJI SHINDE ,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 6. Ld. DR submitted before us that the appellant has not filed correct return of income voluntarily & therefore the appellant is liable for penalty. It was therefore requested by Ld. DR to confirm the penalty order passed by Assessing Officer & sustained by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. 7. We have heard Ld. Counsels

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

TDS of Rs 80,000/- appeared in 26AS statement of appellant for the year. The AO noticed that no return of income has been filed by appellant for the year despite having Income from capital gain on sale of immovable property. The case was reopened by issuing notice u/s 148. In response notice u/s 148, the appellant filed ROI with

SOLAPUR SIDDHESHWAR SAHAKARI BANK LTD,SOLAPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) was imposed on the basis of three additions i.e. non- deduction of TDS on interest

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

TDS must have been made u/s 1941A by the buyer of the property sold by the appellant. In such circumstances the above submission of the appellant is not convincing The contention that the appellant has suo moto declared her taxable income in the return filed by her in response to the notice issued by the AO u/s

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;

TDS. Being unsatisfied with the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officer passed an assessment order u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on an income of Rs.77,08,55,040/- against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.71,76,93,230/-. The above assessed income includes disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the IT Act of Rs.5

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. AJARA MERCHANTS CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AJARA, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. 5. The assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the above assessment order. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “6. The appellant is a credit

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. AJARA MERCHANTS CO-OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD., AJARA, AJARA

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1138 & 1693/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs. Ajara Merchants Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd., Main Branch, Nalawade Building, Main Road, Ajara, Kolhapur- 416505. Pan : Aadca1779J Appellant Respondent Revenue By Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde : Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 28.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 23.03.2024 & 13.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. First We Shall Take Up The Quantum Appeal I.E Ita No.1138/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were also initiated. 5. The assessee preferred first appeal before Ld. CIT(A) against the above assessment order. After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “6. The appellant is a credit

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

TDS credit is duly appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant for the year under appeal. The appellant submits that the case of the appellant could not be properly explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the above non-allowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may please

PRITAM SHRIKANT PARVATKAR,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR-12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2525 & 2526/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Pritam Shrikant Parvatkar, Vs. Dcit, Circle-12, Pune. 19, Jaydeo Nagar, Sinhgad Road, Pune- 411030. Pan : Abqpp3304F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya Shri Vishvjeet Nagda Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 15.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 08.08.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2526/Pun/2025 For Adjudication.

TDS credit is duly appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant for the year under appeal. The appellant submits that the case of the appellant could not be properly explained in absence of adequate opportunity both during the assessment and appellate proceedings. 2.3 The appellant, therefore, prays that the above non-allowance made by the Ld. Assessing Officer may please

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

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

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

TDS & Disallowance for such default (iii) Refund claim (iv) Unsecured loan 2.1. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer issued statutory notices u/sec.143(2) and 142(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, in response to which, the Authorised Representative of the Assessee appeared before the Assessing Officer from time to time and filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual