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 in exercising of revisional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: - 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find the issue that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is could the CIT in exercise of power under Section

M/S. NATIONAL TEMPO HOUSE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1215/Pun/2016 Block Period : 1987-88 To 1997-98

u/s 158BFA(2) on the addition of Rs.1579140 sustained in assessment on account of undisclosed value of stocks on hand on 27.02.1997. The 2 National Tempo House Hon CIT(A) and the AO failed to appreciate that the appellant had correctly declared undisclosed value of stocks in its return of income and that the addition made in the assessment

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16 dated 20.02.2024 emanating from the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. The learned CIT(A)-NFAC erred in law in law and on facts in confirming the penalty u/s 271

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income. [Addition Rs.7,93,62,371/-] 10. After going through the submissions and above mentioned discussion, the total assessed income of the assessee is as under : Total Income as per return : (-)Rs.1,95,25,614/- Add : As per discussion in para

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

section 68 would indicate that when any money is found to be credited in the books of the assessee it is for the assessee to prove the identity of the creditor, genuineness of the transaction and the creditworthiness. 16.3 The detailed analysis of evidences available on record clears any iota of doubt about the spurious nature of such transactions

RATNAGIRI.ITO1@INCOMETAX.GOV.IN, RATNAGIRI vs. MANGALA HARI INGALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed for Statistical Purpose

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer-1, Mangala Hari Ingale, Ratnagiri. V G-1604, Empire Square, Near S Auto Cluster Chinchwad East, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune – 411019. Pan: Aaipi0141G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.08.2023. The Revenue For A.Y.2018-19 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “I. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Accepting The Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated By Evidence & Which Had Not Stood The Test Of Enquiries In Assessment Proceedings. Ii. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Allowing The Ao To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Him As Per The Provisions U/S Mangala Hari Ingale [R]

112 of the Act on sale of immovable property. v. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.68,85,826/- made on account of unexplained investment in immovable property u/s 69 of the Act. vi. The appellant prays that the order

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. Briefly, the facts are under : 4. The Appellant TIBCO Software B.V is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherland. The Company is engaged in sale of Software maintenance, consulting and training services in India. The return of income for the Assessment

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is separately initiated.” 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) it was stated that in the year under consideration the project was not commenced and only a Joint Venture Agreement was entered. However, the assessee grossly erred in treating the stamp

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

penalty proceedings be overturned. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant TIBCO Software B.V. is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherlands. The company is engaged in sale of Software licences and provision of Software maintenance, Consulting and Training services in India. The return of income

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

penalty proceedings be overturned. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant TIBCO Software B.V. is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherlands. The company is engaged in sale of Software licences and provision of Software maintenance, Consulting and Training services in India. The return of income

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Further, on the issue of allowing depreciation u/s.32 of the Act, in respect of the capital assets (building) purchased with exempt income, the AO held that the claim of depreciation is not allowable on the said assets. AO noted that

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

112 (SC) and Sumati Dayal vs. CIT, 214 ITR 801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings