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

long term capital gains. However, it set aside the issue of exemption u/s 54F to CIT(A) for re-adjudication. The Ld CIT(A) allowed the appeal vide his order dt 08/07/2019. 5. AO had, in the meanwhile, levied penalty u/s 271

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

Term Capital 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

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

long term capital 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

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

long term capital gains‘. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee had not declared this amount of capital gains in her original return and subsequently, after search has declared the total amount of capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately

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

long term capital gains‘. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee had not declared this amount of capital gains in her original return and subsequently, after search has declared the total amount of capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately

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

long term capital gains‘. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee had not declared this amount of capital gains in her original return and subsequently, after search has declared the total amount of capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately

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

long term capital gains‘. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee had not declared this amount of capital gains in her original return and subsequently, after search has declared the total amount of capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately

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

long term capital gains‘. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee had not declared this amount of capital gains in her original return and subsequently, after search has declared the total amount of capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately

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

long term capital gains‘. The Assessing Officer further observed that since the assessee had not declared this amount of capital gains in her original return and subsequently, after search has declared the total amount of capital gains and thus, concealed the particulars of income and consequently, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated separately

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

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

Term Capital 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

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

long term 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

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

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Penalty, proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) are initiated separately for furnishing in accurate particulars of income.” Therefore, AO suspected the purchase and sale transaction of shares which gave rise to the short term capital loss of Rs.8.39 Crore and treated the same as income of the assessee. Assessed income is determined at Rs.28,99,67,172/-. 15. Before

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

long term capital gains and Rs.91,153/- on account of capital gains. On the aforesaid additions, AO vide order dt.30.09.2016 levied penalty of Rs.14,58,282/- u/s 271

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

long term capital gains of Rs.5,94,393/- were offered by the assessee by considering the sale consideration at Rs.50,98,500/- as per the provisions of section 50C as against the actual sale consideration of Rs.48,64,000/- received as per the registered sale deed and hence, no penalty u/s 271

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

long term capital gains of Rs.5,94,393/- were offered by the assessee by considering the sale consideration at Rs.50,98,500/- as per the provisions of section 50C as against the actual sale consideration of Rs.48,64,000/- received as per the registered sale deed and hence, no penalty u/s 271

RAMESHWARDAS SHIVCHARANDAS AND COMPANY ,NANDED vs. ITO WARD 1, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.524/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16

long-term capital gain is resulting in double taxation. The addition may kindly be deleted. 12. The Ld. AO erred in initiating the penalty u/s 271