ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

127 and also disregarding the objections raised u/s 292BB in this regard. Without prejudice to the above and alternatively under protest: 2) On facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making routine additions / disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

127 and also disregarding the objections raised u/s 292BB in this regard. Without prejudice to the above and alternatively under protest: 2) On facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making routine additions / disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

127 and also disregarding the objections raised u/s 292BB in this regard. Without prejudice to the above and alternatively under protest: 2) On facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the learned Assessing Officer erred in making routine additions / disallowances in assessment u/s 153A in the absence of any incriminating material and without appreciating the fact that original

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

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. 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

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

ASHOK V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1255 & 1256/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Ashok V.Kotecha, The Dcit, Central Circle- 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Vs 1, Nashik. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abmpk 4173 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune Dated 27.04.2018 For The A.Y.S 2006-07 & 2007-08, Emanating From The Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2017. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1255/Pun/2018 For A.Y.2006-07 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned

127 of the Act. 2. To quash the penalty order passed which is contrary to the judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 3. To delete the penalty u/s 274 r w s 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,54,720/- [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before

ASHOK V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1,, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita Nos.1255 & 1256/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Shri Ashok V.Kotecha, The Dcit, Central Circle- 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Vs 1, Nashik. Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abmpk 4173 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai – Ar Assessee By Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune Dated 27.04.2018 For The A.Y.S 2006-07 & 2007-08, Emanating From The Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.03.2017. Since The Facts & Issue Involved In Both These Appeals Are Same, Therefore, Two Appeals Are Clubbed, Heard & Are Decided Together By A Consolidated Order. For The Sake Of Convenience, We Take The Appeal In Ita No.1255/Pun/2018 For A.Y.2006-07 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned

127 of the Act. 2. To quash the penalty order passed which is contrary to the judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 3. To delete the penalty u/s 274 r w s 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 3,54,720/- [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before

DEELIP V.KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Deelip Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Acit, Cc-(1), 1, Pradhan Apartment, Pratap Vs Nashik. Nagar, Jalgaon – 425001. Pan: Abcpk 8441 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 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)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2010-11 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 19.09.2014. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “ [A] Grounds Of Appeal 1. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard.

127 of the Act. 5. To quash the penalty order passed which is contrary to the judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 6. To delete the penalty u/s 274 rws 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs.5,69,552/-. [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion

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

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -(1),, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1258/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Leelavati Vijaykumar Kotecha, The Dy.Commissioner Of 4, Teachers Colonyh, Ring Vs Income Tax, Cc(1), Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Nashik. Pan: Alvpk 4435 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Hari Krishan & Jaygobind Palai –Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walilmbe – Dr Date Of Hearing 29/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 08/08/2022 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)-12, Pune For The A.Y. 2012-13 Dated 27.04.2018, Emanating Out Of Order Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “5. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer Erred In Passing The Assessment Order Without Having Jurisdiction Because, No Opportunity Of Being Heard Was Granted To The Appellant U/S 127 & Also Disregarding The Objections Raised U/S 292Bb In This Regard. Without Prejudice To The Above & Alternatively. 6. In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessing Officer Erred In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) On The Basis Of Notice U/S

127 of the Act. 5. To quash the penalty order passed which is contrary to the judgement of Bombay High Court and Supreme Court. 6. To delete the penalty u/s 274 r w s 271(l)(c) amounting to Rs. 52,616/- [C] General: - • The appellant reserves rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1296/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Leelavati Vijaykumar Vs. Dcit, Central Circle- Kotecha, 2(1), Nashik. 4, Teachers Colony, Ring Road, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Alvpk4435H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhupendra Shah Revenue By : Shri J. P. Chadraker Date Of Hearing : 21.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 12, Pune [‘Cit(A)’ For Short] Dated 21.03.2016 For The Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Is A Recalled Matter. The Tribunal In Assessee’S Own Case Vide Ita Nos.1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 For The Assessment Years 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2012-13, Order Dated 26.04.2018 Had Adjudicated The Issue Ex-Parte & Dismissed The Above Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee. Thereafter, On Miscellaneous

2. To delete the addition of Rs. 47,12,511/- wrongly made u/s 68. 3. To delete the interest charged u/s 234A, B, C and D and initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(b). 3 [D] General: - • The appellant reserve rights to add alter or delete any portion of this appeal before its conclusion. • This appeal is filed in time

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in passing the order. 2. The CIT (A) erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the penalty u/s 271

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

127), ),(Refer Page No. 177 – 181 of Paperbook for Case Laws)in which also allowability or otherwise of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act with respect to the undisclosed income in the form of cash was the subject matter of consideration. The relevant substantial question of law on which decision was sought by the revenue read as under

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

127), ),(Refer Page No. 177 – 181 of Paperbook for Case Laws)in which also allowability or otherwise of deduction u/s. 80-IB of the Act with respect to the undisclosed income in the form of cash was the subject matter of consideration. The relevant substantial question of law on which decision was sought by the revenue read as under