SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income. It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

RAVI PICHAYA , DIRECTOR IN HEXTECH ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the addition of deemed dividend in its order ITA No.7733/Mum/2010, Α.Υ. 2003-04 dated 05/02/2014. 5.16 The reliance of appellant in plethora of cases of jurisdictional High Court namely, Jignesh Shah, Impact Containers, Universal Medicare cannot come its rescue. In all these case the Hon'ble High Court has held that

RAVI PICHAYA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the addition of deemed dividend in its order ITA No.7733/Mum/2010, Α.Υ. 2003-04 dated 05/02/2014. 5.16 The reliance of appellant in plethora of cases of jurisdictional High Court namely, Jignesh Shah, Impact Containers, Universal Medicare cannot come its rescue. In all these case the Hon'ble High Court has held that

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

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long

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

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long

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

deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 6. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

dividends from\nthe shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore,\nreiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached\nthe conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions\nknowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income.\nIt was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

dividends from\nthe shares did not form the part of the total income. It was, therefore,\nreiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached\nthe conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions\nknowing that they are incorrect; it amounted to concealment of income.\nIt was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

deeming provisions of explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the penalty without appreciating the fact that the assessee has availed higher claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) in the computation of income than as admissible

JETSYNTHESYS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.346/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jetsynthesys Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Limited, 101-104, 1St Floor, Metro House, Mangaldas Road, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaicm1358A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sarvesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 06.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of The Act It Be Held That The Penalty Imposed U/S 270A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by observing as under :- “10. It was tried to be suggested that section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act. It was further pointed out that

GIRISH B. CHAUDHARI, L/O. OF LATE SHRI BHAGWAT N CHAUDHARI,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, NASHIK

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteit(Ssa)A No.80/Pun/2017 (Assessment Year:2009-10) Smt. Mahesh Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar (Central - 1) Vs. Yawat Road, Bhusawal Nashik Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Adkpc7175P Appellant Respondent Shri Girish Bhagwat Chaudhari The Income Tax Officer (Lh Of Late Bhagwat N . Chaudhary) (Central - 1) 11, Swed Bindu, Shanti Nagar Vs. Nashik Yawat Road, Bhusawal Jalgaon 425201 Pan –Aalpc0512G Appellant Respondent

Penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated separately. 49.1 During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant made the following submission: 6] Ground No.5: Addition of Rs. 7,25,00,000/- towards unexplained investment in land 6.l] The Ld. A.O. has discussed this issue in para 9 of the asst. order. According

MSC SOFTWARE CORPORATION INDIA P.LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

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

271(1)(c) without considering the fact that transfer pricing adjustments has been made on account of difference of opinion, interpretation of provisions of law, etc and not due to concealment of or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. Further, the learned Assessing Officer also erred in initiating the penalty proceedings against the Appellant in respect of voluntary adjustment made

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

MANGESH RAMESH ANNACHHATRE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.628 To 631/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14 & 2015-16 Shri Mangesh Ramesh Annachhatre, 1206/13/B, Sarswati Sadan, Muncipal Colony, J.M. Road, Pune -411004 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aawpa8999E

dividend in 4th and 5th and LIC pension in last assessment year involving varying sums, respectively. It is these heads of income which have been treated to be representing the assessee’s concealed income as not declared in the original return(s) inviting section 271(1)(c) penalty that department has invoked the penal action in issue. 3. We have

MANGESH RAMESH ANNACHHATRE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.628 To 631/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14 & 2015-16 Shri Mangesh Ramesh Annachhatre, 1206/13/B, Sarswati Sadan, Muncipal Colony, J.M. Road, Pune -411004 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aawpa8999E

dividend in 4th and 5th and LIC pension in last assessment year involving varying sums, respectively. It is these heads of income which have been treated to be representing the assessee’s concealed income as not declared in the original return(s) inviting section 271(1)(c) penalty that department has invoked the penal action in issue. 3. We have

MANGESH RAMESH ANNACHHATRE,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) , PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.628 To 631/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 To 2013-14 & 2015-16 Shri Mangesh Ramesh Annachhatre, 1206/13/B, Sarswati Sadan, Muncipal Colony, J.M. Road, Pune -411004 .......अपऩलधथी / Appellant Pan : Aawpa8999E

dividend in 4th and 5th and LIC pension in last assessment year involving varying sums, respectively. It is these heads of income which have been treated to be representing the assessee’s concealed income as not declared in the original return(s) inviting section 271(1)(c) penalty that department has invoked the penal action in issue. 3. We have