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

capital 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

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹18,00,580/-, which has been levied by the Ld.AO for excess claim of deduction 8 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹18,00,580/-, which has been levied by the Ld.AO for excess claim of deduction 8 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹18,00,580/-, which has been levied by the Ld.AO for excess claim of deduction 8 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement

DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

capital gains on transfer of immovable property on the ground that the appellant had concealed the particulars of his income without appreciating that the levy of penalty was not justified on facts and in law. 2 Dinar Umeshkumar More 2] The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the penalty order u/s 271

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)

u/s 271(l)(a) of the Act, for delay in filing of return. Though the assessee filed certain explanation, the AO overlooked it. The AO presumed that the assessee had no reason to offer for the delay, and therefore he was satisfied that the assessee had without any reasonable cause failed to file the return in time

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

capital gains earned on sale of immovable property has supressed the fact that he had taxable income in his hands. Thus when 270A(9) (a) is read with 270A(2) (b) and 270A(3) (1) (b) (A), there is under reporting of income consequent to misreporting of income to the extent of Rs.24,70,490/-in hands of appellant

KRISHAN KUMAR TARACHAND,PUNE vs. ITO (IT) WARD -2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.513/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Krishan Kumar Tarachand, Vs. Ito (It), Ward-2, Pune. Flat No.4, Anupam Apartments, Nda Pashan Road, Bavdhan Khurd, Pune- 411021 Pan : Abupd4503C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Manoj Tripathi Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 09.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. (A) The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Erred In Law & In Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Merely On The Premise That The Appeal Was Filed Belatedly & Without Providing Reasonable Opportunity Of Being Heard. (B) The Ld. Nfac Erred In Law In Dismissing The Appeal Filed Against Penalty Order U/S. 271(1)(C) Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 25.06.2018 Levying A Penalty Of Rs.6,09,760/- Without

Capital Gains”. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Subsequently

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

capital gains, it was a clear case for levying penalty u/s 271(1)(c). 6.7. In view of the facts

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act being the payment of cash of Rs.97,74,069/- to Mrs. Deepa Tapadiay and Yash Tapadiay on account of purchase of Baner land on the ground that the assessee has not explained the source of such unaccounted cash paid to Tapadiya family members. We find the CIT(A) / NFAC sustained the penalty

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 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), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act invoking explanation 5A . The AO levied Penalty only on one ground that the assessee offered additional income only because of search. Though the assessee had explained that assessee was following Project Completion Method. We are aware that explanation 5A to Section 271(1) has introduced the deeming fiction. However, in this 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

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

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

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\n: Nil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through

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

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

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nRs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons recorded/objections

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

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

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons

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

u/s. 271(l)(c) may be declared null and void. 3 I.T.A.No. 1320/PUN./2023 5. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the assessee submits that the addition made of Rs.1,42,65,106/- on account of alleged cash paid to Tapadiya group for purchase of land is not warranted at all and hence, no penalty can be levied