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

68,901/- 3. 26.03.2019 Rs.1,71,440/- 4. 20.02.2020 Rs.31,76,561/- 4 8. It was accordingly requested to delete the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee and upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “5. Findings: The Grounds

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

9) ITAT-Pune Page 10 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 was determinant before imposing the impugned penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the entire proceedings invalid and thus untenable in the eyes of law. Consequently the penalty imposed u/s 270A of the Act being bad in law deserves to be quashed, ergo

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

9) ITAT-Pune Page 10 of 20 ITA No.54 & 55/PUN/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 & 2018-19 was determinant before imposing the impugned penalty u/s 270A of the Act has rendered the entire proceedings invalid and thus untenable in the eyes of law. Consequently the penalty imposed u/s 270A of the Act being bad in law deserves to be quashed, ergo

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%.

9) of section 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

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 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

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

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

9 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.1 Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against section 154 order, by observing as under: “Ground 01: In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the addition made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is Rs. 5.80,64,205/- towards disallowance of 801A

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

9 ITA Nos.2392 & 2455/PUN/2024, AY 2018-19 3.1 Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee against section 154 order, by observing as under: “Ground 01: In this ground of appeal the appellant objected the addition made by the Assessing Officer (CPC) is Rs. 5.80,64,205/- towards disallowance of 801A

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

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, 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.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the assessee is a primary credit cooperative society and has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration. Even the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 was filed belatedly. Since

SANCHAR GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,JUNNAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 8, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2428 & 2434/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanchar Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Assessment Unit, Sahakari Patsanstha Income Tax Department. Maryadit, Arvi Junnar- 412401. Pan : Aagas3985H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad A. Shah Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 09.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.04.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 27.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19 Respectively. 2. Since The Facts Are Identical & Both The Above Captioned Appeals Were Heard Together, Therefore, 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.2434/Pun/2024 For Adjudication.

9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that the assessee is a primary credit cooperative society and has not furnished its return of income for the period under consideration. Even the return of income in response to notice u/s 148 was filed belatedly. Since

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

ACIT, CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK vs. TAPARIA TOOLS LIMITED, NASHIK

In the result, both the appeal of the Revenue as well as Cross Objection of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as per the terms indicated above

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

68,362 0.069% M/s. Anuradha Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. ₹7,81,80,000 ₹3,16,000 0.4% M/s. Ferrum Alloys Pvt. Ltd. ₹9,89,98,584 ₹10,98,357 1.1% M/s. Accurate Metal Corporation ₹(-)3,35,765 NA M/s. Jasonath NO DATA Bright Steel Ltd. (g) The assessment order of M/s Sharp King Trading Pvt. Ltd. has rejected the books

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

9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law and without prejudice to other Ground, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is bad in law since the learned Ld. AO [ITO Ward 1(1) Nashik] had no jurisdiction to reopen the case of the Appellant u/s 148 of the Act on the basis