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

deposits made in credit society in third party of ₹ 2 lakhs; renovation expenses incurred on the outlets of ₹ 3 lakhs and accounting for the jewellery found during the course of search of ₹ 10 lakhs. The CIT(A) also held the assessee liable for penalty under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid additional 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

deposits made in credit society in third party of ₹ 2 lakhs; renovation expenses incurred on the outlets of ₹ 3 lakhs and accounting for the jewellery found during the course of search of ₹ 10 lakhs. The CIT(A) also held the assessee liable for penalty under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid additional 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

deposits made in credit society in third party of ₹ 2 lakhs; renovation expenses incurred on the outlets of ₹ 3 lakhs and accounting for the jewellery found during the course of search of ₹ 10 lakhs. The CIT(A) also held the assessee liable for penalty under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid additional 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

deposits made in credit society in third party of ₹ 2 lakhs; renovation expenses incurred on the outlets of ₹ 3 lakhs and accounting for the jewellery found during the course of search of ₹ 10 lakhs. The CIT(A) also held the assessee liable for penalty under Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the aforesaid additional income

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

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

penalty CIT order u/s 271 (1) (c) dated 27/09/2023 for AY 2013-\n2014.\nAgainst the above orders, we had filed appeals in the office of Income tax\nTribunal Pune, (online) within the prescribed time period along with the\nappeal fees.\nWe received acknowledgments for both appeals filed by us, copies of which\nare attached herewith. Since, we are not computer

ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is also bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied may kindly be deleted.” 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that during the course of search, bank accounts with Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank in respect of Arjun Trading Company and Anand Trading Company and with Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank and HDFC Bank in respect

SATISHKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is also bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied may kindly be deleted.” 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that during the course of search, bank accounts with Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank in respect of Arjun Trading Company and Anand Trading Company and with Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank and HDFC Bank in respect

ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) is also bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied may kindly be deleted.” 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. submitted that during the course of search, bank accounts with Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank in respect of Arjun Trading Company and Anand Trading Company and with Solapur Janata Sahakari Bank and HDFC Bank in respect

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

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"

cash deposits and the interest accruals are not to be construed as superfluous income without any legal basis. C. Referring to the argument relating to the ambiguity in the mind of AO that reference to 1) satisfaction of AO at the time of initiation of time of penalty and 2) the fact of mentioning the appropriate limb even when Explanation

RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(5), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

cash deposits of Rs.3,34,54,285/- is treated as unexplained money and added to income of assessee. I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271

RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(5), PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

cash deposits of Rs.3,34,54,285/- is treated as unexplained money and added to income of assessee. I am satisfied that assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings u/s 271