TULSABAI 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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

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. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order to the extent that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order to the extent that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order to the extent that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order to the extent that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order to the extent that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

capital gains. The Assessing Officer recorded satisfaction in the body of the assessment order to the extent that the assessee had concealed the particulars of income and penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

capital gains and other sources. Since the additional income was offered for taxation only after search action in the case of assessee, penalty proceedings were initiated for concealing income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The Assessing Officer thereafter, vide order passed under section 271(1)(c

M/S. CHAKRABARTY MEDICAL CENTRE,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1137/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Chakrabarty Medical Centre, C-802, Palmdale, California Apartments, Nibm, Undri Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 411060 …. Pan: Aabfc5809Q Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Nikhil Pathak प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri Sanjeev Ghei

capital gain in its return of income filed originally nor in the return of income filed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

capital gains of Rs.5,94,393/- were offered by the assessee by considering the sale consideration at Rs.50,98,500/- as per the provisions of section 50C as against the actual sale consideration of Rs.48,64,000/- received as per the registered sale deed and hence, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

capital gains of Rs.5,94,393/- were offered by the assessee by considering the sale consideration at Rs.50,98,500/- as per the provisions of section 50C as against the actual sale consideration of Rs.48,64,000/- received as per the registered sale deed and hence, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. MADHURI SUNIL KOTECHA,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 271(1)(c) for which penalty proceedings are being initiated. The relevant extract of the assessment order where the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction is reproduced here-in-below : “2. ………….Notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being issued in respect of the long term capital gains

SHRINIWAS VITTHAL SIDDAM,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.287/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr. Shriniwas Vitthal Siddam, G-123, Vyanktesh Engineering Works, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Midc, Ahmednagar - 414111 …. Pan: Bmgps1631C Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 2, Ahmednagar अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent By : Shri M.K. Verma सुनवाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 17.07.2019 Date Of Hearing : 08.07.2019

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of ₹ 1,59,500/-. The case of assessee was picked up for scrutiny and addition of ₹ 11,51,000/- was made in the hands of assessee on account of Long Term Capital Gains

SAKAL PAPERS LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY. CIT, CIRCLE 6, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

capital gains.” 16. We also perused the penalty order dated 28.03.2011 and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extraction. The said satisfaction reads as under: “03.3…………………Hence, it is clear that assessee has avoid the legitimate tax liability by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within

SAKAL PAPER LTD.,,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIR.-6,, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.498/Pun/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06

capital gains.” 16. We also perused the penalty order dated 28.03.2011 and find the satisfaction recorded by the AO for levying the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act is relevant for extraction. The said satisfaction reads as under: “03.3…………………Hence, it is clear that assessee has avoid the legitimate tax liability by furnishing inaccurate particulars of income within

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

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