SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

5A was amended w.r.e.f. 01-06-2007 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 and it became the Act on 13-08-2009. The present appeal relates to the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the said penalty is directly relatable to the said additional income of Rs.8,10,000/-. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company Background

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

5A was amended w.r.e.f. 01-06-2007 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 and it became the Act on 13-08-2009. The present appeal relates to the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the said penalty is directly relatable to the said additional income of Rs.8,10,000/-. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company Background

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

5A was amended w.r.e.f. 01-06-2007 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 and it became the Act on 13-08-2009. The present appeal relates to the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the said penalty is directly relatable to the said additional income of Rs.8,10,000/-. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company Background

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

5A was amended w.r.e.f. 01-06-2007 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 and it became the Act on 13-08-2009. The present appeal relates to the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the said penalty is directly relatable to the said additional income of Rs.8,10,000/-. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company Background

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

5A was amended w.r.e.f. 01-06-2007 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 and it became the Act on 13-08-2009. The present appeal relates to the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the said penalty is directly relatable to the said additional income of Rs.8,10,000/-. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company Background

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

5A was amended w.r.e.f. 01-06-2007 by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2009 and it became the Act on 13-08-2009. The present appeal relates to the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and the said penalty is directly relatable to the said additional income of Rs.8,10,000/-. ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company Background

SIDHESH MOHAN RAIKAR,NASHIK vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGLORE

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.294/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2023-24

disallowance has been adjudicated in para 5.1 of this order, therefore, the AO is directed to recompute the interest payable under the provisions of section 234B & 234C in the Order Giving Effect accordingly. The Appeal filed on this ground is partly allowed for statistical purposes. TAX DEPAN 6. In the result, the appeal is Partly allowed for statistical purposes

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 15 Cummins India Limited. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short

COPPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,, SATARA

In the result, both the appeals of assessee and Revenue are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.621/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11

disallowance of deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 34. Brief facts relating to the issue are that the assessee during the year under consideration had claimed deduction of ₹ 3.89 crores under section 35(2AB) of the Act being 150% of expenditure incurred of ₹ 2.594 crores. The Assessing Officer vide draft assessment order had short granted deduction under section

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.13/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12

disallowance. 14. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee pointed out that the issue stands covered in favour of assessee by the order of Pune Bench of Tribunal in the case of Cummins India Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2018) 96 taxmann.com 576 (Pune – Trib.). He pointed out that facility has been approved by DSIR and certificate in Form No.3CL has been

COOPER CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,SATARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

disallowed the claim as discussed in paras 5.1 and 5.2. 35(1)(iv) of the Act. Considering the fact that the said alternate claim is not made in original return of income, the Assessing Officer did not allow same. The Assessing Officer rejected the main claim u/s 35(2AB) of the Act for want of the approval of the DSIR

STAR ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 10,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1435/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2014-15

disallowance of deduction to the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Where the 7 Competent Authority had granted approval / recognition after verification of all the details, then the claim of assessee for deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act cannot be ruled out only on the ground that the approval in the prescribed form No.3CM

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

disallowance made in the hands of assessee. He further pointed out that penal provisions are to be interpreted strictly and penalty for concealment could be levied only if it fits into four corners of law. He further placed reliance on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in CIT Vs. SAS Pharmaceuticals

MINILEC INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.690/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Minilec India Pvt. Ltd., 1073/1-2-3, At & Post Pirangut, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune – 412111 …. Pan:Aabcm2682E Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 11(2), Pune

disallowance of deduction to the assessee under section 35(2AB) of the Act. Where the Competent Authority had granted approval / recognition after verification of all the details, then the claim of assessee for deduction under section 35(2AB) of the Act cannot be ruled out only on the ground that the approval in the prescribed form No.3CM was not received

BHARAT FORGE LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

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

disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in assessment year 2011- 12. The Tribunal decided this issue in favour of assessee by observing as under : “16. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The issue before us is vis-à-vis weighted deduction claimed under section 35(2AB) of the Act. The assessee had recognized

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

5A to section 271 of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. 16. No doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, we are not concerned with the assessment of income, but the moot question is to whether this

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.

5A to section 271 of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. 16. No doubt, the discrepancies were found during the survey. This has yielded income from the assessee in the form of amount surrendered by the assessee. Presently, we are not ITA No.743/PUN/2019 for A.Y. 2015-16 ACIT, Circle-7, Pune Vs. M/s.Tirupati Construction