ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154

ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154

SATISHKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA,,LATUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee in ITA

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

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for non-satisfaction of either of the limbs. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer has to come to a finding as to whether the assessee has concealed its income or furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Shri Samson Perinchery in ITA No.1154

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, 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

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, 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

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

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

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for which he levied the penalty on account of surrender of income of Rs.10.74 crores. We find the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that although the land was converted into stock in trade during the financial year

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

section, wherein it was held that mere disallowance made and so also the addition made on surrender of income would not attract the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Some of such decisions, have already been cited by the appellant in his written submissions made before the AO during penalty proceedings and further during appellate proceedings

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

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income 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 2020-21 rejecting

PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

section 271(1)(c), by an order imposed a penalty of ₹76,80,877/- (rounded up to ₹77,00,000/-)equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on additional business income brought to tax and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act., over & above the income returned in original return of income filed by the appellant assessee

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