M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

127 of the Act.\"\n7.1.9 Assessee has relied upon the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case\nof Heart Foundation of India vs CIT in which it has been held that PCIT\nCentral has no jurisdiction to decide about the issue of registration u/s\n12AA of the Income Tax Act. In this regard, it is brought on record that\nthe

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandra

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant prays that the penalty proceedings be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of appeal herein and to submit such statements, documents and papers as may be considered necessary either at or before the appeal hearing so as to enable

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

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

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\n\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

SANDIPAN BHAGWANRAO JADHAV,LATUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1, LATUR

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

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1247/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sandipan Bhagwanrao Jadhav, V The Income Tax Officer, 1, Padmin, Behind Hanuman S. Ward-1, Latur. Temple, Prakash Nagar, Latur – 413512. Maharashtra. Pan: Abcpj1410E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Shilchandra Hajgude – Ar Revenue By Shri Akhilesh Srivastva– Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 17/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23/06/2025

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2016-17, dated 15.09.2024 emanating from Assessment Order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, dated 25.03.2022. ITA No.1247/PUN/2025 [A] Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the Assessee submitted a paper book. At the outset, ld.AR submitted that there is a delay of 180 days in filing appeal before the ITAT