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 and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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 and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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 and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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 and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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 and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately by the Assessing Officer. The above said finding of the Assessing Officer is the deemed satisfaction recorded by the Assessing Officer before initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and in view

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

gains, Rs.61,15,826/- on account of deduction u/s 80IA of the Act, Rs.23,05,985/- on account of capital expenditure and Rs.1,24,000/- on account of deduction u/s 14A of the Act. AO vide order dt.22.03.2013 levied penalty u/s 271

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

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on\nthe long term capital gain income of Rs.10.74 crores. He however

ARJUN SHAMDAS BHAGTANI,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

Gain on sale of land at Pisoli. The Assessing Officer made addition of the said amount and also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30-06-2010 passed u/s. 271(1)(c) levied penalty of Rs.3,87,000/- on account of undisclosed Long Term Capital

CHANDRASHEKHAR BAGADE,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 5(1), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Chandrashekhar Bagade Ito, Ward 5(1), Pune F 5, Windmill Village, Vs. Opp Ambrosiya, Paud Road, Pune – 411021 Pan: Amxpb8229M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sharad A Vaze Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 30-07-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31-07-2025 O R D E R

capital gain. However, the Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) only on the issue of allowability of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. The CIT(A) vide order dated 08.07.2019 allowed the claim of exemption u/s 54F of the Act. 5 9. In the meantime, the Assessing Officer had levied the penalty u/s 271

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) were that the appellant had filed the return of income not truly and correctly and deduction u/s. 54/54F on account of long term capital gains

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

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

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

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the denial of claim of deduction u/s 54 of the Act. Before us, assessee has submitted that he had purchased land for construction of the house and also utilized the capital gains

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

SMT KOKILABEN M SHAH & HITESH M SHAH (LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR SHAH),PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

Gains. The ld. DR prayed for confirming levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) and dismissing the appeal of assessee. 4. We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal is against confirming of penalty on undisclosed Long Term Capital

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. PARESH FARMS PVT. LTD.,, AURANGABAD

In the result, the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2023/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Acit, Circle-1, .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Aurangabad. बनाम / V/S. M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., “Akash” Paithan Road, Aurangabad. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aaccp3783C C.O. No.03/Pun/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.2023/Pun/2016) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Paresh Farms Pvt. Ltd., “Akash” Paithan Road, Aurangabad. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaccp3783C बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle-1, ……""यथ" / Respondent Aurangabad. Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agarwal & Shri Vijay Saboo Revenue By : Shri Sanjeev Ghai सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 19.03.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: The Appeal In Ita No.2023/Pun/2016 Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Aurangabad Dated 15.06.2016 For The 2 C.O. No.03/Pun/2019

capital gain’ and added the same in the hands of the assessee. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271