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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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.

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court

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.

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court

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.

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court

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.

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court

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.

271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu[2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed by him. Accordingly

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was also imposed at Rs.72,93,114/-. The assessee has not preferred further appeal against the quantum reassessment order however an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC against the penalty order dated 27.09.2022. Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC allowed the appeal by deleting the penalty levied at Rs.72

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

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