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

13. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer did not have any jurisdiction since the assessee’s application was admitted by the Settlement Commission and it was only the Settlement Commission which could have initiated and levied penalty u/s 271

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, 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

13. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is barred by limitation. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer did not have any jurisdiction since the assessee’s application was admitted by the Settlement Commission and it was only the Settlement Commission which could have initiated and levied penalty u/s 271

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

penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee‖. 12 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 7. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has made a bonafide claim which was approved by various High Courts in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxman.com 96 (Bombay) and Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice

M/S SIZE CONTROL GAUGES AND TOOLS PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. DY CIT , CIRCLE- 5 , PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1864 To 1868/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 To 2011-12 M/S. Size Control Gauges Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. & Tools Pvt. Ltd., Plot No.100/101, Tiny Industries Co-Op. Estate Ltd., Pisoli Road, Kondhwa (Bk), Pune- 411048. Pan : Aaccs3670F Appellant Respondent

3) r.w.s. 254 of the IT Act was passed and as per the direction of the Tribunal the addition on bogus purchase was restricted to Rs.2,03,116/- being 10% of the bogus purchases of Rs.20,31,158/- earlier determined by the Assessing Officer. Consequently, fresh penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated. 7. In response to notice

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

13. It goes without saying that for applicability of section 271(1)( c), conditions stated therein must exist." 8. Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed. There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c). That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature. 11. In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu [2009] 23 VST 249 as regards the penalty are apposite. In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. We find the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court read\nas under:\n“12. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the\nparties, we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the\nassessee has to prevail as it carried substantial weight

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act submitted that as per the said sub-section the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or clause (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

13. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the provisions of section 271AAB of the Act submitted that as per the said sub-section the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or clause (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed