HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

271(1)(c) of the Act in exercising of revisional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: - 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find the issue that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is could the CIT in exercise of power under Section

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

DHAVAL VINOD GADA,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE-5, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Dhaval Vinod Gada Dcit, Circle – 5, Pune 101, New Timber Market, Vs. Bhawani Peth, Pune – 411042 Pan: Anjpg4733A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak Department By : Shri A D Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 26-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

section 68 of the Act as the explanation offered by the assessee in respect of Rs.1,62,00,000/- is not satisfactory in my opinion. The assessee had made layer transaction for accommodating undisclosed funds. Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. For the remaining amount of Rs.1.62, crore

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

ULKA MADHUKAR SHINDE,PANVEL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

penalty CIT order u/s 271 (1) (c) dated 27/09/2023 for AY 2013-\n2014.\nAgainst the above orders, we had filed appeals in the office of Income tax\nTribunal Pune, (online) within the prescribed time period along with the\nappeal fees.\nWe received acknowledgments for both appeals filed by us, copies of which\nare attached herewith. Since, we are not computer

DCIT-CIRCLE 7 PUNE, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK PUNE vs. TRIO CHEMSUCROTECH ENG. PROJECTS PVT. LTD, PUNE

Penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income have also been initiated separately.”\n5. Ld. AO also noticed that assessee had claimed an expense of Rs.2,31,13,761/- on account of provision for pending expenses relating to the contracts but since there was no plausible explanation by the assessee ld. AO came to conclusion that provisioning

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

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

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

133(6) of the Act, the Ld. AO completed the assessment vide order dated 31.01.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.75,11,045/- by making an addition on account of – (i) Rs.69,47,776/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act and (ii) saving bank interest

MR. VIJAY ASHOK JESWANT,RAIGAD vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANVEL, PANVEL

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. The appeal against the penalty order was filed on 04-04-2025. 4. Accordingly the process of gathering the relevant documents and the information required for preparing and filing the appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 08-08- 2023 was started. 5. The appeal was finally

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

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

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

BAYJABAISHAMRAO NIKAM,NASHIK vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 2,, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.742/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Bayjabai Shamrao Nikam, Vs. Acit, Circle-2, Nashik. Ghar No.844, Near Ramsetu Bridge, Gangaghat, Murlidhar Koat, Nikam Wada, Panchwati, Nashik- 422003 Pan : Amypn0716G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Smt. Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 23.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 25.07.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appellant Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1] The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.22,00,000 Made By The A.O. In The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 By Treating Entire Cash Deposits Made During The Year Under Consideration As Unexplained Income Without Appreciating That The Said Addition Is Not Justified On Facts & In Law.

section 139 of the IT Act. On the basis of information available with the Department, that the assessee made cash deposits in his savings bank account maintained with the Bank of India during the year under consideration, notice u/s 148 was issued on 31.03.2018 and duly served upon the assessee. 3 Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) was issued

SWAMINI MAHILA GRAMIN BIGARSHETI SAHKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2533/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Swamini Mahila Gramin V The Income Tax Officer, Bigarsheti Sahakari Patsanstha S. Ward-12(3), Pune. Maryadit, Survey No.272, Sainagar Gourav Bunglow, Lohagaon, Near Uttareshwar Mandir, Pune – 411047. Pan: Aakas1168G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal Revenue By Smt Indira R. Adakil-Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16, Dated 19.08.2025 Emanating From Assessment Order 147 R.W.S 144B Of The

133(6) received from GS Mahanagar Co-Operative Bank Ltd. The appellant is denied the opportunity to submit its counter reply. 9.4. The Ld AO erred in considering only cash deposited in bank and has ignored payment side of the bank account. 9.5. The Ld AO failed to appreciate that because of lack of knowledge and illiteracy of the management

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