INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

reopening of assessment nor any revisionary proceedings u/s 263 of the Act. Relying on various decisions, he submitted that when the addition has been made on estimate basis, no penalty is leviable. Referring to the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Rajmal Lakhichand vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1206/PUN/2023 for assessment year

MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

assessed Rs 348875 less TDS Rs 156326 and Self Asst Tax Rs 170890 paid on 27/03/2018 before the issue of Notice U/s 148 of IT Act.) 3) The initiation of penalty as well as final penalty order is bad in law as AO failed to invoke Specific Explanation to section 271(1)(C) under which the assessee has committed default

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same did not file any return of income. In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee made partial submission. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

PRATAP WAMAN KHANDEBHARAD,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same did not file any return of income. In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee made partial submission. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same did not file any return of income. In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee made partial submission. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same did not file any return of income. In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee made partial submission. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same did not file any return of income. In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee made partial submission. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

P K INFRAPROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. DCIT CC 1(1), PUNE

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

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

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued. The assessee in response to the same did not file any return of income. In response to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act, the assessee made partial submission. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

reopening of the assessment vide letter dated 17.09.2019. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 30.10.2019 rejected the objections filed by the assessee by passing a speaking order. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee asking him to explain as to why the amount of Rs.50 lacs should not be added u/s

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income. [Addition Rs.7,93,62,371/-] 10. After going through the submissions and above mentioned discussion, the total assessed income of the assessee is as under : Total Income as per return : (-)Rs.1,95,25,614/- Add : As per discussion in para

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

reopening the case. 7.4 I have carefully examined the above contention of the appellant in the light of provisions of section 270A of IT Act. Relevant provisions of section 270A are reproduced as under: "270A. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. (2) A person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if- (a) the income assessed

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

penalty of Rs.32,89,952/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a firm and engaged in the business of promoters and builders. It had filed its return of income on 31.10.2006 declaring total

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case in hand are not in accordance with

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case in hand are not in accordance with

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case in hand are not in accordance with

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

reopened the assessment on the basis of information that emerged at the time of search action u/s 132 of the Act at the premises of M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multistate Credit Society Ltd.. Therefore, we hold that the initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act in the instant case in hand are not in accordance with