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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “5.5.1 The appellant's main plea is that all facts relating to commission expenditure and preliminary expenses were duly disclosed, and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “5.5.1 The appellant's main plea is that all facts relating to commission expenditure and preliminary expenses were duly disclosed, and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

TDS Rs 156326 and Self Asst Tax Rs 170890 paid on 27/03/2018 before the issue of Notice U/s 148 of IT Act.) 3) The initiation of penalty as well as final penalty order is bad in law as AO failed to invoke Specific Explanation to section 271

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

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. It is this order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 7. When the present appeal was called for hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, neither any application for adjournment was filed despite due service of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis

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

MULAY BROTHERS PVT. LTD.,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

penalty has been levied u/s. 271(1)(c) for claiming interest charges paid on account of late payment of TDS

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

JAGDISH VISHWANATH KANKREJ,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

TDS. On the aforesaid additions, AO vide order dt. 30.08.2016 levied penalty of Rs.15,44,530/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved

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

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, JALNA CIRCLE,, JALNA vs. THE PARBHANI DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., , PARBHANI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The CIT(A) discussed the deductions which were confirmed in quantum proceedings in detail from para 5 of impugned order and we find that all the details of claims before the AO as rightly pointed by the ld. AR, in respect of interest received on statutory reserve fund, the assessee claimed

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