M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5 , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

section 271(1)(c). 3. Without prejudice to Ground No. 1 and 2, the Ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee had not concealed particulars of income and the disallowance was made out of alleged bogus purchases

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. DEEPAK SHANKAR PANASKAR,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 203 & 204/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11

bogus purchases over and above the GP declared by the assessee. 7. We have considered the decision in the case of Mukeshkumar Pukhraj Mehta Vs. The Income Tax Officer (supra.) on which the ld. DR has placed reliance. In the said case, the assessee had admitted to the addition of purchases made from the hawala dealers. No supporting documents substantiating

LEEBA CONSTRUCTION,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

bogus purchases, AO vide order dt.28.07.2015 levied penalty of Rs.5,71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieved by the penalty order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.06.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-2/ACIT Cir/AN/2014- 15) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee

M/S. M M BROTHERS,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

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

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

section 271(1)(c) on the basis of which the penalty proceedings were initiated was neither communicated by the A.O. in the asst. order nor in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and therefore, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed in the instant case was bad in law in view of the 2 law laid down

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (4),, NASHIK vs. JITENDRA RAVINDRA MALPURE,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the penalty order of Assessing Officer, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide consolidated order dt.22.08.2019 (in appeal No.Nsk/CIT(A)-1/44 & 45/2018-19) allowed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal and has raised the following grounds:- 1. Whether

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The assessee has drawn strong support from the CIT(A)’s foregoing detailed discussion. 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the foregoing rival stands and find no merit in the Revenue’s argument. It emerges first of all that the impugned penalty pertains to two issues of section 54 deduction amounting

NIWAS SPINNING MILLS LIMITED,SOLAPUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, SOLAPUR

The appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.724/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Niwas Spinning Mills Ltd., The Acit, C/O. Vijay Ramniwas Jaju, 406- V Circle-1, Solapur. A, West Mangalwar Peth, Chati S Galli, Solapur – 413002. Pan: Aaacn6350 P Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Girish Ladda – Ar Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 30/10/2023

Section 41(1) is a deeming provision and hence penalty u/s 271(1)(C) not applicable on deeming additions. 4) None of the creditors were found to be sham or bogus by the AO. 5) All the creditors were genuine regular business creditors, ledgers attached from Page 4-37 of PB to prove that credit balances arose out of regular

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that,\npower to cancel \"registration\" u/s 12A/12AA/12AB exists with the\nsame authority which grants the same

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty has been levied under wrong charge for concealment of income. It is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and not concealment of income. Since, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty has been levied under wrong charge for concealment of income. It is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and not concealment of income. Since, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. M/S. RDS CONSTRUCTION CO.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2731 To 2733/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Acit, Circle-2, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Kolhapur. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Rds Construction Co., 233/3, Malati Towers, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416003. Pan : Aabfr4457M ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: There Are Three Appeals Under Consideration. Ita Nos.2731 & 2732/Pun/2016 Filed By The Revenue Are Against The Common Orders Of Cit(A)-2, Kolhapur Dated 26.09.2016 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2010-11 Respectively.

section 271(1)(c). Consequently, the penalty has been levied under wrong charge for concealment of income. It is a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and not concealment of income. Since, the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) has been levied on wrong charge, the same is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

bogus purchases. 7. While matter stood thus, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.09.2015 holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing the income. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

bogus purchases. 7. While matter stood thus, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.09.2015 holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing the income. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

bogus purchases. 7. While matter stood thus, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act vide order dated 30.09.2015 holding that the assessee is guilty of concealing the income. 8. Being aggrieved by the order of levy of penalty, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order

ANKEET COTTAGE INDUSTRIES ,,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (3),, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

bogus purchases and initiated proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for filing inaccurate particulars. The AO imposed penalty for concealment of income which is not maintainable in view of decision of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Samson Perinchery reported in 392 ITR 4. 4. Shri S.P. Walimbe, the DR did not dispute