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

263 or section 264, after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after the expiry of the financial year in which the proceedings, in the course of which action for the imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1) of the Act was attracted in the case of the assessee, though the assessee had filed Revised return of income on 30/09/2011 declaring the total income of Rs.41,67,100/-, prior to issuing of the notice u/s.148 of the Act related to the said addition on which the penalty had been levied by the Assessing Officer also treating

SHRIRAM VITHAL CHIDRAWAR,,NANDED vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

263 of the Act, that the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of undisclosed stock of fertilizers. While making addition the Assessing Officer did not record satisfaction for initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in First Appellate proceedings against assessment while deliberating on the addition

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Ld. Commissioner passed order u/s 263 holding that the omission on the part of the Assessing Officer to initiate penalty proceedings during the course of assessment has rendered the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. He placed reliance on the decision of Allahabad High Court

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision u/s 263 of the Act. We are mindful to state that, the Ld. AO’s acceptance of part of total unexplained sub-contract expenditure for the purpose of assessment does neither capable of changing the very characteristic of unexplained expenditure/transactions nor does it shield the transactions from attracting penal provisions of section 271(1)(c)/271AAB

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision u/s 263 of the Act. We are mindful to state that, the Ld. AO’s acceptance of part of total unexplained sub-contract expenditure for the purpose of assessment does neither capable of changing the very characteristic of unexplained expenditure/transactions nor does it shield the transactions from attracting penal provisions of section 271(1)(c)/271AAB

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

revision u/s 263 of the Act. We are mindful to state that, the Ld. AO’s acceptance of part of total unexplained sub-contract expenditure for the purpose of assessment does neither capable of changing the very characteristic of unexplained expenditure/transactions nor does it shield the transactions from attracting penal provisions of section 271(1)(c)/271AAB

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

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

263 opined that deduction u/s 80IB(10) should not have been allowed by the AO without proper verification of the certificate issued by the CIDCO indicating the date of commencement as 7-04- 1998 The Tribunal considered the fact that though the commencement certificate issued by the CIDCO indicated the date of commencement as 7-04-1998, the actual

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

271(1)(a) of the Act covers cases where the assessment to which the proceedings for imposition of penalty relate is the subject matter of an appeal to the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) 10 ITA No. 1688/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2005-06 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Category (2) i.e. section

MR. ANIL ANANDA POKHARNIKAR ,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(3) , PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

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

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act based on an non-est Assessment order passed u/s. 144 read with sec. 147 of the Act, which was already set aside by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Pune-3, exercising Revisionary powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] vide Revision

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

revised return of income on 31.03.2015 declaring total income of Rs.1,20,54,68,920/-. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act determining the total income at Rs.122,32,40,620/- by making disallowance of Rs.1,05,69,000/- u/s 2 14A r.w.s. 8D of the IT Rules. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer passed

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

u/s 270A of the Act. The provisions of section 270A as stood at the relevant time read as under: “Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income. 270A. (1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20/12/2017. There is no dispute on these dates. Thus, the penalty order was passed within Six(06) months of passing the assessment order. The relevant Section 275 is reproduced here as under : Section 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) without considering the fact that the transfer pricing adjustment is on account of difference of opinion pertaining to selection criteria adopted for identifying the comparable companies. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary, omit, substitute or amend the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at, the time of hearing

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ICHALKARANJI, ICHALKARANJI vs. SANJAY GHODAWAT BUILDCON LLP , CHIPRI

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

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1337/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT Act are being initiated separately for having furnished inaccurate particulars of such income." So while passing the Best Judgement Order it is imperative to consider all facts and replies available on record and then to proceed with the assessment order. While passing the order, assessing officer has not considered

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, NASHIK vs. GULAB MAHARU BADGUJAR (HUF),, THANE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1439/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07 Acit, Central Circle-2, Vs. Gulab Maharu Badgujar Nashik. (Huf), 204, Pashupatinath, C- 02 B Wing, Mahadev Sankalp Complex, Gandhare Village, Near Khadakpada Chowk, Kalyan (West), Thane- 421301. Pan : Aaehg6745C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.08.2022 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)- 12, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 26.07.2019 For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Briefly, The Facts Of The Case Are That The Respondent-Assessee Is Huf Deriving Income Under The Head “Income From Other Sources”.

revision u/s 263 of the Act. Pursuant to the order u/s 263, an addition of Rs.19,00,000/- was made vide assessment order dated 18.01.2016 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer had proceeded with levy of penalty of Rs.11,24,943/- u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. M/S. JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS (I) PVT. LTD.,, RAIGAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri Percy

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri Percy

JOHNSON MATTHEY CHEMICALS INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,RAIGAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the Revenue for assessment year 2009-10 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

271(1)(c) of the Act. XIII. erred in not quashing the initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of appeal hearing.” 6 M/s. Johnson Matthey Chemicals India Private Limited. 4. Shri Percy