VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

penalty cannot be levied u/s 271(1)(c) as has been held in several cases including Rupam Mercantile Vs. DCIT [(2004) 91 ITD 237 (Ahd) (TM)] and Smt.Ramila Ratilal Shah Vs. ACIT [(1998) 60 TTJ (Ahd) 171]. The admission of substantial question of law by the Hon’ble High Court lends credence to the bona fides of the assessee

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

deduction u/s 80IB(10) that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274. A SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 perusal of the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the penalty

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

deduction u/s 80IB(10) that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274. A SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 perusal of the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the penalty

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

deduction u/s 80IB(10) that the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274. A SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 perusal of the second notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the penalty

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “5.5.1 The appellant's main plea is that all facts relating to commission expenditure and preliminary expenses were duly disclosed, and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “5.5.1 The appellant's main plea is that all facts relating to commission expenditure and preliminary expenses were duly disclosed, and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “5.5.1 The appellant's main plea is that all facts relating to commission expenditure and preliminary expenses were duly disclosed, and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act by observing as under :- “5.5.1 The appellant's main plea is that all facts relating to commission expenditure and preliminary expenses were duly disclosed, and therefore no penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is an\nadmitted fact that the first notice u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s.274 was issued on\n31.03.2016. However, the CIT(A)-3, Pune passed the order on 12.11.2018\nallowing the claim of deduction

SUKANTO ROY DEVELOPERS,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER ,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

deduction u/s. 80IB(10) also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of above disallowance. The ld. AR further

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

u/s 154 of the Act is illegal. The provisions of section 132B of the Act makes it clear that the terms ‘existing liability’ does not include advance tax payable in accordance with the provisions of Part C of Chapter XVII. But this amendment was brought in the statute by Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1.6.2013 only. Hence

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

deduction claimed by the assessee u/s. 80-IA of the Act at Rs.5,60,11,420/- is hereby disallowed and added to the total income of the assessee as taxable income. Penalty proceedings u/s 271