ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DAMJI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 2(14)(b)(ii) of IT Act, 1961. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(appeals) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the total population of the area within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority was more than ten thousand

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI SATISH DAMJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 2(14)(b)(ii) of IT Act, 1961. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(appeals) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the total population of the area within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority was more than ten thousand

ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SHRI DHARAMSI HIRJI CHAUHAN,,

Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

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

section 2(14)(b)(ii) of IT Act, 1961. (3) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(appeals) has erred in deleting the addition on account of capital gain on sale of land as the total population of the area within the jurisdiction of Naya Raipur Development Authority was more than ten thousand

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

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 account with bank not having been made by the assessee, tantamount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and justifiably, penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is leviable on such furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee in a written Note had furnished the break-up of income

BAJAJ HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO, WARD-8(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad

capital gain’ as has been originally declared it as ‘business income’ in the books. It is clearly a case of re-classification of income and cannot be considered as under reporting or misreporting of income. 7 Bajaj Housing Finance Limited 11. Though assessee has referred various decisions in the case law paper book referred (supra), I however taking note

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

capital gain worked out by the assessee at Rs.82,35,603/- is disallowed and added to business income of assessee. Penal proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (ii) Addition of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of unsecured loan as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Act by observing as under

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]

capital gain. It be held accordingly quashing the penalty levied. 2 Arun Keshavrao Narwade –HUF [A] 6) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the penalty levied under S. 271(l)(c) is illegal and without jurisdiction. The penalty is also not leviable in view of limitation and other legal problems involved. The penalty

SAKAL PAPER LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

capital gains and for withdrawal of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. For A.Y. 2008-09 penalty of Rs.61,15,826/- was levied on addition made on account of withdrawal of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of the Act. The perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act reveals that in the assessment order

REXEL INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical\npurposes

Gains\" and Section 47 of the Act specifically excludes transfer\nof capital assets, pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation, from the\npurview of Section 45 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the view that\nthese provisions have no relevance to the facts of the present case.\n26. The Revenue, vide its written submissions, has relied upon certain\njudicial pronouncements

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE, PUNE

Appeal is allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote

274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act, the Id. A.O. had not specified the limb under which the penalty proceedings were being initiated and hence, since the notice issued is illegal, the penalty order passed u/s.274 r.w.s.271(l)(c) be held to be invalid in law. 4. The Id. CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating that even

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. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had disclosed income only after enquiries by the Department, which was concealed by him, therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed income also furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty proceedings

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. The Assessing Officer was of the view that the assessee had disclosed income only after enquiries by the Department, which was concealed by him, therefore, I am satisfied that the assessee has concealed income also furnished inaccurate particulars of income within the meaning of section 271(1)(c) for which penalty proceedings