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

10-04-2018 Prosecution proceedings SCN withdrawn 28-9-2018 Concealment penalty levied 5.5 Appellant has contended that the penalty order is barred by limitation of time. Hence, the provisions of section 275 are discussed hereunder for ready reference. Analysis of Section 275- From perusal of the said section, it is seen that there is no appeal against the order

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

10 ITA No.759/PUN/2024, AY 2010-11 to be considered for the purpose of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the L.T. Act and the penalty is to be levied on the income assessed over and above the income returned under section 1534. if any." ii. Principal CTT-19, Delhi Vs. Neeraj Jindal (2017) 79 taxmann.com 96 (Delhi

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to assessment years\n2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is\ndirected against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to\n assessment year 2020-21 rejecting

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

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5 , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. 11. In ground no.1 the assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. 11. In ground no.1 the assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. 11. In ground no.1 the assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. 11. In ground no.1 the assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

10. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and copy of case laws furnished by the assessee. 11. In ground no.1 the assessee has challenged that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the Ld. Assessing Officer passed penalty order u/s 271

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee‖. 12 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 7. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has made a bonafide claim which was approved by various High Courts in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxman.com 96 (Bombay) and Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

20% on the amount of Rs.81,51,03,640/- and imposed penalty of Rs.24,45,31,092/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made two-fold arguments. It was argued that in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act the exact clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings were initiated was not mentioned

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

20% on the amount of Rs.81,51,03,640/- and imposed penalty of Rs.24,45,31,092/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made two-fold arguments. It was argued that in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act the exact clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings were initiated was not mentioned