AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- and the same is required to be offered to tax in the year when consideration is received. Ld.AO further observed that out of 5 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) LTCG of ₹1,64,17,638, assessee has declared LTCG

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act is clearly attracted in this case.\n07. From the facts of the case it has been brought on record that the assessee has\nconverted the land inherited by the assessee form capital asset to stock in trade.\nThe reply given by the assessee in his statement is reproduced below:\n\"This land

MRS BALBIR KAUR BIRDIE ,MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO 11(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gain, the assessee filed a revision petition u/sec.264 of the Act before the PCIT. The PCIT considered the said petition of the assessee and set aside the order passed u/sec.143(3) of the Act to the file of Assessing Officer to compute the income as per the provisions of law. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued two notices u/sec.142(1

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE -5, PUNE vs. SERUM INSTITUTE OF INDIA PVT LTD.,, PUNE

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

capital expenditure and cannot be allowed as deduction. 29. On the other hand, ld. Sr. Counsel submits that the expenditure which does not qualify for weighted deduction can be allowed as revenue expenditure either under the provisions of section 35(1)(iv) or u/s 37(1) of the Act. He submits that this issue was covered by the decision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment. The Ld.\nCIT(A) / NFAC

RAKESH YASHWANT SHINDE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 8(3),, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1133/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwanth Shinde, The Income Tax Officer, Shop No.24, Rachana Industrial Vs Ward-8(3), Pune. Complex, Telco Road, Bhosari, Pune – 411034. Pan: Aorps 8006F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 13/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 27/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2014-15 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-13, Pune’S Order Dated 05.03.2018 Passed In Case No. Cit(A)-13/16- 17/583/617, In Proceedings U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

capital gains of Rs.19,10,690/- thereby invoking section 2(47)(v) of the Act, ITA No.1133/PUN/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 Rakesh Yashwant Shinde Vs. ITO (A) we note that the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion to this effect reads as under: “5. DECISION: I have carefully considered the matter. Ground 4 is general in nature, while ground

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

Capital gain and also initiated penalty for concealment of income. The AO also made addition of undisclosed interest. The assessee has not preferred any appeal against the quantum of addition. The AO levied the Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. The Assessing Officer has mentioned in his order under section

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

gain” assessable for that assessment year in respect of any other capital asset not being a short term capital asset”. Clause (c) of section 74(1) provides that “if the loss cannot be wholly so set off, the amount of loss not so set off shall be carried forward to the following assessment year and so on”. Sub-section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

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

WARANA INDUSTRIES LTD,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -1, , KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1284/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Warana Industries Limited, The Acit, Circle-1, Gat No.795, Tatyasaheb Kore Vs Kolhapur. Nager, Chikurde Road, A/P: Warnanagar, Tal.Panhala, Kolhapur – 416113. Pan: Aaacw 1694 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri S.N.Puranikh – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2022 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(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For The A.Y. 2006-07 Dated 16.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.05.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Gain declared by the assessee. During the assessment proceedings, the AO noted that assessee has debited certain expenditures as revenue expenditure under the Head- Purchase of dairy machinery and spare parts. For the reasons discussed, the AO treated Rs.79,26,31/8/- as capital expenditure and disallowed it. The AO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PRABHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

gain income was shown by the assessee in its return of income. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act on a total income of Rs.3,57,10,580/- and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) IT Act. The assessee preferred first appeal against quantum addition and when it was dismissed assessee preferred

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

capital gains. This claim of excess expense in this regard, in my opinion, when surrendered by the appellant by realizing such wrong claim, initially made due to inadvertence, cannot be held as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as has been held by the AO while levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I further find that

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.185/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, Rajnagar, Station V Ward-3(1), Aurangabad. Road, Aurangabad – 431005. S Pan: Aahha 8135 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2022 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(Appeals), Aurangabad-2 Dated 18.03.2019 Emanating From Penalty Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 30.03.2017 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Lawthe Penalty Under Section 271(L)(C) Levied Of Rs. 5,66,058/- By The A.O. & Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) In His Appeal Order Dt. 18-03- 2019 Is Not Justified In View Of Latest Hon'Ble Supreme Court Judgment Reported As Pr. Cit V. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts (P.) Ltd [2021] 124 Taxmann.Com 249 (Sc) Dt. 20-22-2020. The Penalty Levied Being Illegal & Without Jurisdiction Be Quashed. Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf [A]

1) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in lawthe penalty under section 271(l)(c) levied of Rs. 5,66,058/- by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order dt. 18-03- 2019 is not justified in view of latest Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment reported