DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, 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. The learned IT Authorities erred in law and on facts in levying penalty on ad-hoc buffer income amounting to Rs.50,00,000 shown in Settlement Application without appreciating that the said income was included by the appellant to avoid any unintended lapses/errors/ omissions, etc. The learned AO erred on facts in levying penalty w.r.t. the said buffer income

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there been no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made full and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) SA Nos.7

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there been no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made full and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) SA Nos.7

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there been no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made full and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) SA Nos.7

ROHINI MARUTI 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

26,54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment

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

26,54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment

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

26,54,554. This assessment was finalized under section 143(3) of the Act on 25-11-2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs. 2,22,688. In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made. Simultaneously penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment

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.

10. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details and information during the course of assessment proceedings. And the addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- was made on the basis

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.

10. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details and information during the course of assessment proceedings. And the addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- was made on the basis

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.

10. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details and information during the course of assessment proceedings. And the addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- was made on the basis

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.

10. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details and information during the course of assessment proceedings. And the addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- was made on the basis

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.

10. Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessee has submitted all the relevant details and information during the course of assessment proceedings. And the addition of Rs.2,02,97,115/- was made on the basis

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the provisions of section 271AAB(1A) have also got two parts. As per the said sub-section, the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the provisions of section 271AAB(1A) have also got two parts. As per the said sub-section, the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed income

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, AURANGABAD.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

u/s 271AAB had been given to assessee,penalty order passed by Assessing Officer was to be restored. Supreme Court held that, on facts, therewas no ground to interfere with impugned order passed by High Court and, therefore, instant petition wasto be dismissed 12. In view of the aforestated discussion, the case laws relied upon the appellant does not come

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\nNo

10,55,078/- to subsequent years. Vide\n\norder dated 30.12.2009, the Assessing Officer completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining total income at\nRs.5,65,72,261/- after making additions on account of disallowance\non the ground of excessive and unreasonable cane price paid and\ndisallowance on account of sale of sugar at concessional

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\nNo

10,55,078/- to subsequent years. Vide\n\n3\nITA Nos.2169 to 2175/PUN/2025\n\norder dated 30.12.2009, the Assessing Officer completed the\nassessment u/s 143(3) of the IT Act by determining total income at\nRs.5,65,72,261/- after making additions on account of disallowance\non the ground of excessive and unreasonable cane price paid and\ndisallowance on account

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