RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

section 270A(9)(e) and therefore, 3 initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A and issued show cause notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A. 5. The assessee in response to the notice issued u/s 270A by the Ld. CIT(A) submitted that he has declared the additional income voluntarily and in a transparent manner by revising the return of income after

SILVER OAK BUILDCON PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. ACIT-6, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18

6. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Act on account of under-reporting of its income in consequence of mis-reporting to the extent of Rs.37 lakh and Rs.11,556/- respectively. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.22,93,742/- being

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. Ashwini आदेशानुसार / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. CONCURRENT ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : I have gone through hon’ble brother Accountant Member’s order quashing both these penalties. I express my full agreement with the same. However, keeping in mind the crucial fact that

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

6. गार्डफ़ाइल / Guard File. Ashwini आदेशानुसार / By Order वररष्ठ दनजी सदिव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय न्यायादधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. CONCURRENT ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : I have gone through hon’ble brother Accountant Member’s order quashing both these penalties. I express my full agreement with the same. However, keeping in mind the crucial fact that

RAJU BHAUSAHEB ANAP,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.467/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Raju Bhausaheb Anap, The Income Tax Officer, 01 Rajshree Samartha Sankul, V Nashik. Near Kalawati Mata Mandi, S Kalanagar, Indira Nagar, Nashik – 422009. Pan: Anrpa 7092 E Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 17/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 26/07/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 20.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 11.01.2022 Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : Raju Bhausaheb Anap [A]

270A was not justified in view of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief facts of the case : 2. In this case, assessee is an individual salaried employee of BSNL, Nashik and earning income assessable to tax under the head Salaries. He filed Original Return of Income for A.Y.2018- 19 on 03.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs.4,76,110/- after

THE MAYANI URBAN CO OP BANK LTD,SATARA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1930/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Mayani Urban Co-Op. Vs. Ito, Ward-3, Satara. Bank Ltd., Tal: Khatav Dist.: Satara, Mayani, A/P Mayani- 415102. Pan : Aaaat7489H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Harish Bist (Virtual) Date Of Hearing : 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.11.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Penalty U/S 270A(9) Of Rs.151140/- Without Appreciating The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case Penalty U/S 270A Is Not Justified At 200%.

270A of the Act was imposed for under-reporting of income in consequence of misreporting. 4. Being aggrieved with the above penalty order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the appeal was furnished with the delay of 1184 days, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that the delay should not be condoned

VEDANT PROPERTIES,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 3(1) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

68,178/- which according to him are un- proved and pretentious for which he reduced the same from the capital work-in-progress. Since the assessee did not file any appeal, he initiated penalty proceedings u/sec.270A of the Act for misreporting of income. Since the assessee did not respond to the notice issued by him while deciding the penalty proceedings

KOTHARI AGRITECH PVT. LTD,,SOLAPUR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

6 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 assessee feels that assessment has been erroneous, that then, currently assessee needs to get it rectified by way of appeal only. 6.4 Lastly, it is further stated that the legally as well, it is not clear whether FAO accepted the claim of the Assessee or not with regard to deduction u/s 80IA

KOTHARI AGRITECH PRIVATE LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

In the result, the both appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

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

6 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 assessee feels that assessment has been erroneous, that then, currently assessee needs to get it rectified by way of appeal only. 6.4 Lastly, it is further stated that the legally as well, it is not clear whether FAO accepted the claim of the Assessee or not with regard to deduction u/s 80IA

DR. PRATAP PANDHIRANATH PATIL,PUNE vs. PCIT - 2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed as per terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. II. To examine the feasibility of addition on account of agriculture expenditure of Rs.4,36,820/- under Section 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 9. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. 10. Ld. Counsel for the assessee made multifold arguments. Firstly, he stated that ld. PCIT erred

CHAITALI HOTELS,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

68 of the Act. During the appeal proceedings, this income was held to be taxable as suppressed business income and therefore, penalty proceedings were separately initiated by issue of a Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 270A of the Act on 05/04/2024. It is also seen that the assessing officer had separately initiated penalty proceedings u/s 270A on some other addition. Thus

LEAR INDIA ENGINEERING LLP,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-8, PUNE, PUNE

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

68,646/- (supra) in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s instant quantum appeal ITA No. 870/Pun./2023 stands partly accepted. 3 ITA.No.870 & 890/PUN./2023 Lear india Engineering LLP 5. Next comes the assessee’s latter penalty appeal ITA No. 890/Pun./2023 challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking Section 270A

LEAR INDIA ENGINEERINGLLP,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CPC, PUNE

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

68,646/- (supra) in very terms. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. The assessee’s instant quantum appeal ITA No. 870/Pun./2023 stands partly accepted. 3 ITA.No.870 & 890/PUN./2023 Lear india Engineering LLP 5. Next comes the assessee’s latter penalty appeal ITA No. 890/Pun./2023 challenging correctness of both the lower authorities’ action invoking Section 270A

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of INR 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of INR 1,35,555 and Bonus of INR 5,07,95,670 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reason whatsoever, 9. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been

SPRINGER NATURE TECHNOLOGY AND PUBLISHING SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 5, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

68,200, Employers Contribution to Provident Fund of INR 43,55,286, Employers Contribution to ESIC of INR 1,35,555 and Bonus of INR 5,07,95,670 made under the intimation order under section 143(1), without assigning any reason whatsoever, 9. The learned AO has failed to appreciate the fact that the said amount has been

SANCHIT KANTILAL GANORE,BHAGUR vs. ITO WARD 1(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1767/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sanchit Kantilal Ganore, V The Income Tax Officer, 21, Main Road, Bhagur, S. Ward-1(1), Nashik. Nashik - 422502. Pan: Aprpg4907J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna Revenue By Shri Aviyogi Ambadkar– Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 09/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/09/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2017-18, Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 21.05.2023. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law & Without Prejudice To Other Grounds, Ld. Nfac Has Erred In Passing A

6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other grounds the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as there was no valid and proper sanction by the prescribed authority under section 151 of the Act and hence the said order

LIQUIDHUB ANALYTICS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD),PUNE vs. NFAC, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

68,72,632 to the taxable income of the Appellant including an adjustment of INR 2,10,10,000/- on account of transfer pricing matters and INR 58,62,632/- on account of corporate tax matters. 4 2. The Ld AO has erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Board) approval for transferring

DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE vs. DIPTI NARENDRA LULLA, PUNE

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

270A of the Act is been initiated against the assessee for under reporting of income. Since the entire interest on unsecured loan is been disallowed therefore no further addition is been made. (Disallowance of Rs.17,67,401/-)(no separate disallowance is required) 7. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs.3,62,267/- on account of expenses being personal