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

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the\ndecision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16\nwherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed.\nThe assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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 U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16 wherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed. The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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 U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16 wherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed. The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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 U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16 wherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed. The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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

37,949 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 10 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ordered by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, deleted the said penalty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

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

37,949 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 10 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ordered by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, deleted the said penalty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

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

37,949 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act 10 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") ordered by the Assessing Authority. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), however, deleted the said penalty. The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter

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

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

37,36,920/-. The same was processed\nu/sec.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short \"the Act\"). In this case a\nsurvey action u/sec.133A of the Act was conducted on 14.09.2016 at his business\npremises. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny. During\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer referred to the various

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)

37,73,000/- and Rs.1,07,85,000/- is declared on account of 30% profit on sale consideration of 12 Row Houses totaling to Rs.3,59,50,000/-. During the course of Search & Seizure action at the office premise of the assessee company, a statement of one of the director of the company namely shri Jugalkishore C. Tapadia was recorded

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PRABHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

10,580/- and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) IT Act. The assessee preferred first appeal against quantum addition and when it was dismissed assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of 3 C.O. No.07/PUN/2025 Rs.77,24,199/-. Assessee preferred first appeal against imposition

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

37. The expression other relevant thing used in Section 275(1)(a) and Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 275 is significantly missing from Clause (c) of Section 275(1) to make out this distinction very clear. 38. We are, therefore, of the opinion that since penalty proceedings for default in not having transactions through the bank

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

SHASHIKANT SUKDEO AMBEKAR,10, SADGURUNAGAR , NASIK 422007, MAHARASHTRA , INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, KENDRIYA RAJASWA BHAVAN,GADKARI CHOWK,AGRA ROAD,NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.364/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar, The Income Tax Officer, 10, Sadgurunagar, Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Nashik – 422007. Pan: Aavpa 6177 F Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Suresh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 21/07/2023 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(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 31.01.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 17.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.1,33,020/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Riot Justified In Law. Shashikant Sukdeo Ambekar [A]

u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in 'dew of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief Facts of the case : 2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessee filed Original Return of Income electronically on 02/08/2016 for A.Y.2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.7,05,190/-. In the original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

37,912 of misreporting (200% of the tax) 5. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC confirmed the penalty so levied by the Assessing Officer by observing as under: “6.5 I have considered the submission of the appellant in view of the facts described by the Id. AO in the penalty order and the case laws referred

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case