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

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "133A", "271(1)(c)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "45(2)", "131", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether penalty u/s

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

131(1) of the Act. We note that the said employee confirmed the fact of availing cash loans of Rs.23,28,690/- and repayment thereon in cash by the assessee which is evident from para 2 of the penalty order. As noted above, the penalty imposed u/s. 271E of the Act in assessee’s own case was cancelled by this

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act of Rs. x,xx,xx,xxx/- for undisclosed income of the specified year. 2. Whether

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act of Rs. x,xx,xx,xxx/- for undisclosed income of the specified year. 2. Whether

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting penalty levied u/s 271AAB of the Act of Rs. x,xx,xx,xxx/- for undisclosed income of the specified year. 2. Whether

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income\nTax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to assessment years\n2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is\ndirected against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to\n assessment year 2020-21 rejecting

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for each and every notice issued which remained un-responded. Further since this provision is of deterrent nature and not for revenue earning, therefore it could only be imposed once for each of the default enumerated u/c (b) of section 271(1) of the Act, irrespective of number of notices issued remained unattended. ITAT-Pune

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for each and every notice issued which remained un-responded. Further since this provision is of deterrent nature and not for revenue earning, therefore it could only be imposed once for each of the default enumerated u/c (b) of section 271(1) of the Act, irrespective of number of notices issued remained unattended. ITAT-Pune

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for each and every notice issued which remained un-responded. Further since this provision is of deterrent nature and not for revenue earning, therefore it could only be imposed once for each of the default enumerated u/c (b) of section 271(1) of the Act, irrespective of number of notices issued remained unattended. ITAT-Pune

GAURISHANKAR EDUCATIION SOCIETY,SATARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTION), WARD-1(1), PUNE

Appeals of the assessee are PARTLY ALLOWED

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 982 To 985/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 To 2016-17 Gaurishankar Education Society, Grahak Sangh, Market Yard, Satara - 415 001 Pan: Aaatg666A . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) for each and every notice issued which remained un-responded. Further since this provision is of deterrent nature and not for revenue earning, therefore it could only be imposed once for each of the default enumerated u/c (b) of section 271(1) of the Act, irrespective of number of notices issued remained unattended. ITAT-Pune

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld CIT(A) was right in allowing the appeal of the assessee holding that the amount of discrepancy of Rs. 18,56,131/- was merely 0.016% of the total turnover, without brining as on record whether the said income was reflected

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

131 of the Act, his AR submitted that Mr. Tapadiya was out of station and therefore could not attend for cross-examination. The Assessing Officer provided the copies of statements recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act of Shri Ajay Tapadiya and copies of assessment orders passed in the cases of Shri Yash Tapadiya and Mrs. Deepa Tapadiya wherein they

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A, etc. As against, no any Penalty per se, is applicable for taxation u/s 115BBC As such, forming 'reasons' for one phenomenon, and taxing the same for some different phenomenon, is completely conflicting. Learned AO is incorrect is starting the 147 proceedings for S. 68, continuing the same for S. 68; and concluding the matter

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