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. 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

38,96,534/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that the assessee has\nfurnished inaccurate particulars of income by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of\nthe Act on the project under consideration which was not completed within the\nstipulated period of 5 years. According to the Assessing Officer when the first\napproval of the project

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

38,96,534/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before

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

38,96,534/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before

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

38,96,534/- being penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded. While levying the penalty the Assessing Officer, relying on various decisions, held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and had there been no survey, the assessee would have escaped by claiming deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. 7. Before

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

RATANLA C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the assessment order is reproduced here-in-below : “Assessed U/s. 143(3). Charge interest U/s. 234B/234C. Give credit to paid taxes on verification. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Issue show cause notice U/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

RATANLA C. BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) for initiating penalty proceedings. The relevant extract of the assessment order is reproduced here-in-below : “Assessed U/s. 143(3). Charge interest U/s. 234B/234C. Give credit to paid taxes on verification. Issue demand notice and challan accordingly. Issue show cause notice U/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

u/s income (`) income 148/153A 148/153A 271(1)(c) (`) (`) (`) 2002-03 3,42,664 06/08/2002 9,47,960 9,47,960 6,05,291 1,80,052 2003-04 2,36,714 08/01/2004 5,71,710 6,09,657 3,72,947 1,17,479 2004-05 2,38,950 30/10/2004

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

38,45,890) after adjusting the incremental liability that may arise on disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A of the Act do not apply