ROHINI MARUTI 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

disallowance of the claim in the assessment proceedings could not be the sole basis for levying penalty under section 271

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1) is reproduced below: "Explanation 1.-Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act.- (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or (B) such

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

Section 271(1B) as afore-quoted was inserted by Finance Act, 2008 (18 of 2008) with retrospective effect from 1-4-1989, which specifically provides that where any amount is added or disallowed

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

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

disallowed in the computation of total income.\nA particular income can be added only when it is not offered in the return of\nincome. If it is offered in the return of income, then that cannot be said to be\nadded by the AO for the purposes of Explanation 1 to section 271

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members.\nSubsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment\norder was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and no further appeal\nagainst the order dated 29.12.2023 was filed before the Tribunal, the\nAssessing Officer on the basis of above addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/-\nimposed penalty of Rs.68

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

disallowance for sale of sugar at concessional rates to members.\nSubsequently when the appeal against the quantum assessment\norder was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC and no further appeal\nagainst the order dated 29.12.2023 was filed before the Tribunal, the\nAssessing Officer on the basis of above addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/-\nimposed penalty of Rs.68

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 8, PUNE vs. M/S. N.D. CONSTRUCTIONS, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.575/Pun/2020 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cricle-8, Pune. M/S.N.D.Constructions, Vs Shop No.19/20, N.B.Arcase, Near Pcmc School, Main Road, Akurdi, Pune – 411035. Pan: Aagfn 6366 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Saurab Bora –Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune Dated 09.03.2020 Arising Out Of Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y. 2013-14. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing The Order Both On The Facts & In The Law. 2. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 1,18,96,500/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S. 271(L)(C) Of The I. T. Act, 1961. 3. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Ignoring The Fact That The Assessor Has Concealed Income Which Was Subsequently Unearthed In Survey Action. 4. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Ignoring The Fact

disallowed in the course of regular assessment? 6. Section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the Assessing Officer in the course

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 7,, PUNE vs. TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.743/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Assistant M/S.Tirupati Construction, Commissioner Of Income- Vs A/23, Geeta Complex, Tax, Circle-7, Pune. Kasturba Housing Society, Vishrantwadi, Pune – 411015. Pan: Aacft 7552 Q Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri M.R.Shirude – Ar Revenue By Shri Sardar Singh Meena – Dr Date Of Hearing 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 19/07/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Pune For The A.Y. 2015-16 Dated 22.02.2019, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified In Deleting The Penalty Levied U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,96,82,300/-. 2. Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld.Cit(A) Was Justified To Hold That The Imposition Of Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Was Not Justified, Despite The Fact That Had The Case Of Assessee Not Been Covered Under Survey Action, He Neither Would Have Declared The Additional Income Of Rs.8,73,26,560/- Nor Would Have Filed Return Of Income Declaring The Said Income.

disallowed in the course of regular assessment? 6. Section 271(1)(c) provides that, if the Assessing Officer in the course

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

disallowed 80P is that assessee had not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

disallowed 80P is that assessee had not filed Return of Income under section 139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not wipe out the finding that the assessee had treated even the remission of interest liability which was clearly taxable under section 41(1) as a capital receipt and excluded it from the computation of income. This constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracting the provisions of section 271

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not wipe out the finding that the assessee had treated even the remission of interest liability which was clearly taxable under section 41(1) as a capital receipt and excluded it from the computation of income. This constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracting the provisions of section 271

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

disallowance does not wipe out the finding that the assessee had treated even the remission of interest liability which was clearly taxable under section 41(1) as a capital receipt and excluded it from the computation of income. This constitutes furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, attracting the provisions of section 271