BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtAI 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.

64 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Unexplained Investmentclear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi328Mumbai312Jaipur153Ahmedabad137Hyderabad110Indore85Chennai66Pune64Surat62Kolkata50Rajkot48Bangalore45Chandigarh32Allahabad24Amritsar23Raipur23Nagpur16Ranchi12Lucknow11Visakhapatnam10Patna10Agra8Guwahati7Jodhpur6Jabalpur6Dehradun6Cuttack2

Key Topics

Section 14856Section 115B43Addition to Income41Section 69B36Section 14735Section 271(1)(c)33Section 143(3)29Penalty27Section 6926

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

ITA 2483/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Kumar Manish Singha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c) is not in accordance with the provisions of the act. Accordingly, the penalty so levied be kindly deleted. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and as per provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') it be kindly held that the quantum addition so made is incorrect and accordingly the penalty proceedings

Showing 1–20 of 64 · Page 1 of 4

Unexplained Investment25
Section 14421
Reopening of Assessment16

SHIVRATAN MOTILAL RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

ITA 606/PUN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Accordingly

SHIVRATAN MOTILALJI RATHI HUF,PUNE vs. ITO, JALNA, JALNA

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

ITA 605/PUN/2025[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jul 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.605 & 606/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2011-12 Shivratan Motilalji Rathi Vs. Ito, Ward-1, Jalna. Huf, Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Opp. Pu La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Jalna- 411030. Pan : Aaehr5318G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Miss Smruti Sabnis Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva : Date Of Hearing 24.07.2025 : Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 21.10.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. There Is Delay Of 64 Days In Filing Of The Present Appeals. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeals Within The Prescribed Time Limit. Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection To Condone The Delay, Therefore We Condone The Delay Of 64 Days & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeals. 3. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 4. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.605/Pun/2025 For Assessment Year 2008-09 As The Lead Case For Adjudication.

For Appellant: Miss Smruti Sabnis
Section 142(1)Section 142ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 249(4)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Accordingly

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 240/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1088/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 1046/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 418/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

ITA 417/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 115BSection 133ASection 69ASection 69BSection 80I

unexplained investment. This discrepancy would not have come to notice without survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the case of assessee. Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271

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

ITA 1138/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were

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

ITA 1693/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

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.

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271FSection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act. Penalty u/s 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the IT Act were

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1121/PUN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1126/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1124/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde &
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAVINDRA GAMBHIR PATIL,JALGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), JALGAON

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

ITA 423/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 423 To 425/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ravindra Gambhir Patil, At Post Changdev, Tal-Muktainagar, Jalgaon - 425 306 Pan: Angpp1849K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4) Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Dr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Bunch Of Three Appeals Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 13/02/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”]

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.3 When assessee failed to represent his case in consequential penal proceedings, the Ld. AO culminated both penal proceedings by an order of even dt. 14/06/2019 imposing a minimum penalty of ₹41,62,290/- u/s 271

RAVINDRA GAMBHIR PATIL,JALGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JALGAON

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

ITA 424/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 423 To 425/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ravindra Gambhir Patil, At Post Changdev, Tal-Muktainagar, Jalgaon - 425 306 Pan: Angpp1849K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4) Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Dr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Bunch Of Three Appeals Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 13/02/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”]

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.3 When assessee failed to represent his case in consequential penal proceedings, the Ld. AO culminated both penal proceedings by an order of even dt. 14/06/2019 imposing a minimum penalty of ₹41,62,290/- u/s 271

RAVINDRA GAMBHIR PATIL,JALGAON vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), JALGAON

Appeals are ALLOWED FOR STATISTCIAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms

ITA 425/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 May 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 423 To 425/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Ravindra Gambhir Patil, At Post Changdev, Tal-Muktainagar, Jalgaon - 425 306 Pan: Angpp1849K . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनाम / V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4) Jalgaon . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Pramod Shingte Revenue By : Dr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya सपिवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 30/05/2023 घोर्णध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 30/05/2023 आदेश / Order Per Bench; These Bunch Of Three Appeals Of The Assessee For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2011-12 Is Assailed Against The First Appellate Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short “Cit(A) /Nfac”] Dt. 13/02/2023 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”]

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Dr. Kalpesh Rupavatiya
Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271BSection 44ASection 69

unexplained investment u/s 69 of the Act. 3.3 When assessee failed to represent his case in consequential penal proceedings, the Ld. AO culminated both penal proceedings by an order of even dt. 14/06/2019 imposing a minimum penalty of ₹41,62,290/- u/s 271

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1320/PUN/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Pune13 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 292CSection 69B

u/s. 271(l)(c) may be declared null and void. 3 I.T.A.No. 1320/PUN./2023 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the addition made of Rs.1,42,65,106/- on account of alleged cash paid to Tapadiya group for purchase of land is not warranted at all and hence, no penalty can be levied

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1125/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1123/PUN/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nRs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons recorded/objections

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

ITA 1122/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14
Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 155BSection 68

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\n: Nil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through