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 as envisaged for 'under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting'. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) levying penalty u/s 270A should be deleted and the ground raised by the assessee be allowed. 13. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order

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

section 270A of the Act. 7. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, it was submitted that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was on account of mis-match of disallowance u/s 43B of the Act reported in the tax audit report which was by mistake not added back to the total income of the assessee while filing

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

8 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 imposing a petty penalty, then we are unable to comprehend as to what stopped the lower tax authorities in outstepping from principle of natural justice while dealing with impugned penalty proceedings. 12. In adjudicating the issue under consideration we are heedful to state that, the penalty provisions of section

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

8 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 imposing a petty penalty, then we are unable to comprehend as to what stopped the lower tax authorities in outstepping from principle of natural justice while dealing with impugned penalty proceedings. 12. In adjudicating the issue under consideration we are heedful to state that, the penalty provisions of section

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]

68,000/- in place of Rs.3,82,120/- claimed in original return and further claimed loss under the head House Property to the extent of (-) Rs.1,79,783/-. Also, the assessee disclosed income under the head Salaries of Rs.6,89,400/- as against Rs.4,76,110/- disclosed in the Original Return of Income. 2.4 After considering the submissions

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

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%.

68 was not furnished hence the immunity from penalty cannot be granted. Ld. AR also submitted that Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC also without verifying the above facts of the case dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee since Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was already of the view that the appeal filed by the assessee is time barred. Ld. AR also

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

8 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 taking into consideration the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Appellant has filed its return of income within the due date as specified under

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

8 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 taking into consideration the disallowance of deduction claimed under section 80-IA of the Act, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139 of the Act. The Appellant has filed its return of income within the due date as specified under

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

8,9 9 Centre OR DCIT, Mahulunge, Tal. Khed, Pune Circle-8, Pune - 410501 PAN: AAHFL9362K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Hirali Desai & Mr. Hardik Nirmal, CA For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, DR Date of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 870 & 890/Pun./2023

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

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

8,9 9 Centre OR DCIT, Mahulunge, Tal. Khed, Pune Circle-8, Pune - 410501 PAN: AAHFL9362K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Ms. Hirali Desai & Mr. Hardik Nirmal, CA For Revenue : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde, DR Date of Hearing : 31.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 22.09.2023 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. These assessee’s twin appeals ITA Nos. 870 & 890/Pun./2023

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

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE vs. BHIKSHU GRANIMART, PUNE

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

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

270A are hereby initiated for underreporting of income.” 4. Similarly, from the audit report filed by the assessee in form 3CB the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee has taken several unsecured loans during the year. He issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the various parties from whom the assessee had shown to have taken unsecured loans

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

8. The learned AO has erred in confirming the disallowance on account of Tax and duties namely Profession Tax of INR 2,68,200, 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

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

8. The learned AO has erred in confirming the disallowance on account of Tax and duties namely Profession Tax of INR 2,68,200, 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

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

8. 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.ws 144 of the Act is bad in law inasmuch as the purported sanction granted by the Pr. CIT-1, Nashik under section 151 of the Act was never provided to the Appellant