RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

133A of the IT Act; after detection of income by the Department. Thus the assessee has concealed the particulars of income the meaning of provision of sec. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Accordingly, I am satisfied the assessee is liable for penalty u/s 271[1](c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The penalty leviable is computed

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON vs. S.K. TRANSLINE PVT. LTD.,, JALGAON

In the result, the cross objections are partly allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) was carried out at the business premises of the assessee on 18-02-2009. During the course of survey, the assessee disclosed additional income of Rs.25,00,000/-. The assessee filed its return of income for the impugned assessment year on 19-09-2009 declaring total income

CPI GERA REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

survey action u/s 133A of the Act were conducted at the registered office and site offices of the appellant company on 11/9/2014. 3.2 Pursuant to aforestated action, consequential assessments u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act in the case of the appellant were completed for ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023

CPI GERA REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 1(3), PUNE

The appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.64 & 65/Pun/2023 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 & 2015-16 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Road, Pune – 411 001 Pan : Aaccg6818R . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle -1(3), Pune . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & Ramesh Soniminde Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/03/2023 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 28/03/2023 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; By The Present Twin Appeals, The Assessee Challenges The Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 23/12/2022 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”].

survey action u/s 133A of the Act were conducted at the registered office and site offices of the appellant company on 11/9/2014. 3.2 Pursuant to aforestated action, consequential assessments u/s 143(3) r.w.s.153A of the Act in the case of the appellant were completed for ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 Gera Reality India Pvt. Ltd., ITA No 64 &65/PUN/2023

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the office premises of the assessee on 03.01.2008 for verification of compliance to the various provisions of TDS

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ INSURANCE CO. LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted in the office premises of the assessee on 03.01.2008 for verification of compliance to the various provisions of TDS

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

133A of the paper book, is 30-03-2013. The assessee lodged a claim before the Tribunal that though the completion certificate was issued on this date, but the project was actually completed on 7-03-2012, when it intimated about the completion of construction to the District Collector, Pune vide its letter, a copy placed at page

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

133A of the paper book, is 30-03-2013. The assessee lodged a claim before the Tribunal that though the completion certificate was issued on this date, but the project was actually completed on 7-03-2012, when it intimated about the completion of construction to the District Collector, Pune vide its letter, a copy placed at page

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

133A of the paper book, is 30-03-2013. The assessee lodged a claim before the Tribunal that though the completion certificate was issued on this date, but the project was actually completed on 7-03-2012, when it intimated about the completion of construction to the District Collector, Pune vide its letter, a copy placed at page

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

133A of the paper book, is 30-03-2013. The assessee lodged a claim before the Tribunal that though the completion certificate was issued on this date, but the project was actually completed on 7-03-2012, when it intimated about the completion of construction to the District Collector, Pune vide its letter, a copy placed at page

GOKHALE CONSTRUCTIONS,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

Survey action u/s 133A of the IT Act was carried out on 16.03.2018 to check TDS 3 compliance. During the survey

BASHCO ENGINEERING PVT.LTD,,SANGLI vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (TDS),, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.894/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09 Bashco Engineering Pvt. Vs. Ito (Tds), Kolhapur. Ltd., Plot No. E-19, Midc Kupwad, Sangli- 416436. Pan : Aabcb1679A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S. P. Walimbe Date Of Hearing : 19.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.05.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 1, Kolhapur [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 04.04.2019 For The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming Interest Liability U/S 206C(7) Of Rs. 28127/-. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate The Fact That When The Tcs Demand Is Nullified In Favour Of Assessee, Interest Liability On The Same Under 206C(7) Does Not Arises. 3. The Interest Demand Raised May Please Be Deleted.

TDS), Kolhapur conducted a survey operations u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on 13.02.2009. During the course

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AURANGABAD vs. DHANANJAY BABRUVAN KENDER, BEED

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Aurangabad Dhananjay Babruvan Kender Bunglow No.69, Yogeshwari Nagari Vs. Ring Road, Ambajogai, Beed – 431517 Pan: Bwlpk1384D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was initiated by the DDIT (Inv), Aurangabad at the office cum residential premises of the assessee at Bungalow No.69, Yogeshwari Nagari, Ring Road, Ambajogai on 14.02.2020. During the course of survey action, cash of Rs.19,31,860/- was found at the premises of the assessee. The assessee

MAHESH MADHAVRAO BUDUKH,,BARSHI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SOLAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee’s business premises on 09.02.2010. During the survey action, the assessee declared additional income of Rs.27,77,876/- towards the ‘excess stock’ of gold and silver. The assessee complied with the said declaration and included the same in the return of income. However, during the scrutiny proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that

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

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

survey action u/s 133A of the Act was conducted on 28.12.2015 at the business premises of M/s Grace enterprises wherein statement u/s 131 of the Act was recorded of appellant's husband namely late Narendra Motilal Lulla and no incriminating documents were seized /found by the department. Further the appellant also stated that the assessment proceedings were completed

M/S P.N. GADGIL & SONS,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 6, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1921/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. P. N. Gadgil & Sons, Vs. Dcit, Circle-6, Pune. Abhiruchi Mall, 4Th Floor, 59C Sinhagad Road, Pune- 411041. Pan : Aanfp4476C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri M. R. Bhagwat Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Date Of Hearing : 15.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 02.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Confirming Penalty Of Rs.23,20,000/- Levied Under Section 272B(2). 2) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Sustaining The Penalty At Rs.23,20,000/- When There Was Only One Default & As Such Penalty Could At The Must Be Sustained At Rs.10,000/- Only. 3) The Learned Cit (A) Nfac Delhi Erred In Sustaining The Penalty Even Though There Was A Reasonable Cause For Assessee'S Failure To Obtain Pan Of Its Retail Customers. 4) The Penalty Levied Be Cancelled Or Reduced To Rs. 10,000/-.

survey u/s 133A was conducted at the premises of the assessee by the Director General (C & I). It was found that the assessee neither obtained nor informed to the department PAN of 232 customers to whom jewellery of Rs.2,00,000/- or more was sold, as required u/s 139A(5)(c) of the IT Act. The default was liable

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.

TDS deducted by employer. The assessee was unaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return filed by Kishor Patil & truly believed that the returns are filed legally as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & 5 therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant

SACHIN BABAN SHINDE,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

TDS deducted by employer. The assessee was unaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return filed by Kishor Patil & truly believed that the returns are filed legally as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant

RAJENDRA SHIVAJI THETE,NASHIK vs. ITO WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2431/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rajendra Shivaji Thete, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Shivanjali, Plot No.25, H.No.4669, Shivaji Nagar, Ozar Mig, Nashik- 422206. Pan : Abwpt0060C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai : 09.01.2025 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 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 270A Of Rs. 1,49,704/- On The Ground That The Assesse Had Under Reporting Of Income In Consequence Of Misreporting Of Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

TDS deducted by employer. The assessee was unaware about the contents of the Income Tax Return filed by Kishor Patil & truly believed that the returns are filed legally as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act. The assessee being from technical background does not understand ABCD of Income Tax & therefore completely relied on the above named tax consultant