SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

section 271(1) of the Act at the time of initiation as well as at the time of levy of penalty. In view of the above deliberation on this issue, without going into the merits of the case, we set- aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the entire penalty imposed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, SATARA vs. KARAD JANATA SAHAKARI BANK LTD,, SATARA

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2600/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ito, Ward- 1, Vs. Karad Janata Sahakari Bank Satara. Ltd., A/P. 100/101, Shivaji Nagar, Karad, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara-415110. Pan : Aaaat7863R Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare : Date Of Hearing : 18.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 4, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 08.05.2017 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Revenue Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. C I T (A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs. 59,00,884/- Levied U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act Holding That The Ao Was Not Able To Prove That Is A Fit Case For Imposition Of Penalty Either Under The Main Part Of Section U/S. 271(1)(C) Or Under The Deeming Provisions Of Explanation 1 To Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

section 14A were inserted by finance Act, 2001 w. e .f. 01/04/1962, whereas in extant case disallowance relates to wrongful deduction claim which was confirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT. 4. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the ld.CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing

NEELESH SATISH KANADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Neelesh Satish Kanade, Vs. Acit, 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Central Circle-2(1), Model Colony, Pune Pune 411 016 Pan : Agdpk4376L Appellant Respondent

section 274 was issued: `for concealing the income/furnishing inaccurate on income‟. As against this, the items which led to the imposition of penalty are only in the realm of „furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income‟. The question arises as to whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in such circumstances is sustainable? 7. Recently, the full Bench

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

penalty to the tune of Rs.3,64,15,837/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. The order of the CIT(A) be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 5. As far as A.Y. 1998-99 is concerned, assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 1998-99 on 30.11.1998 declaring loss of Rs.5

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below: (3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of an Assessing Officer- (a) where he has made a return 34 [under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139, after the expiry of one month from the date on which

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.185/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, Rajnagar, Station V Ward-3(1), Aurangabad. Road, Aurangabad – 431005. S Pan: Aahha 8135 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2022 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(Appeals), Aurangabad-2 Dated 18.03.2019 Emanating From Penalty Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 30.03.2017 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Lawthe Penalty Under Section 271(L)(C) Levied Of Rs. 5,66,058/- By The A.O. & Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) In His Appeal Order Dt. 18-03- 2019 Is Not Justified In View Of Latest Hon'Ble Supreme Court Judgment Reported As Pr. Cit V. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts (P.) Ltd [2021] 124 Taxmann.Com 249 (Sc) Dt. 20-22-2020. The Penalty Levied Being Illegal & Without Jurisdiction Be Quashed. Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf [A]

section 271(l)(c) levied of Rs. 5,66,058/- by the A.O. and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) in his appeal order dt. 18-03- 2019 is not justified in view of latest Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgment reported as Pr. CIT v. Golden Peace Hotels and Resorts (P.) Ltd [2021] 124 taxmann.com

M/S. SHREE HATKESHWARA CARGO MOVERS,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

section. The question arises as to whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in such circumstances is sustainable? 4. Recently, the full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. Dy.CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom) has considered this very issue. Answering the question in affirmative, the Full Bench held that a defect

M/S. SHREE HATKESHWARA CARGO MOVERS,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 5,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1586 & 1587/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2010-11 & 2012-13 M/S. Shree Hatkeshwara Cargo Vs. Acit, Circle-5, Movers Pune Office No.8, Wonder City, Katraj By-Pass Road, Pune – 411046 Pan: Aatfs8504N Appellant Respondent

section. The question arises as to whether penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in such circumstances is sustainable? 4. Recently, the full Bench of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh Vs. Dy.CIT (2021) 125 taxmann.com 253 (Bom) has considered this very issue. Answering the question in affirmative, the Full Bench held that a defect

SHREEM CONSTRUCTION,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the are allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the limb on which the penalty has been issued is not specified. The inappropriate portion of the notice has not been struck off. That, obviously the A.O has not A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 arrived at any satisfaction while imposing penalty under the relevant section of the Act. Law of natural

SHREEM CONSTRUCTION,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

In the result, both the appeals of the are allowed

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the limb on which the penalty has been issued is not specified. The inappropriate portion of the notice has not been struck off. That, obviously the A.O has not A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 arrived at any satisfaction while imposing penalty under the relevant section of the Act. Law of natural

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

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

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below:\n(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of\nan Assessing Officer-\n(a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of\nsection 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139,\nafter the expiry of one month from the date on which

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

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

124(3) of the IT Act is reproduced below:\n(3) No person shall be entitled to call in question the jurisdiction of\nan Assessing Officer-\n(a) where he has made a return [under sub-section (1) of\nsection 115WD or) under sub-section (1) of section 139,\nafter the expiry of one month from the date on which