PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

PRAKASH RAMAN CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

MEGHA PRAKASH CHAUDHARI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.737 To 740/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Prakash Raman Chaudhari, Garden View Bunglow, Saptashrungi Colony, Old Gangapur Naka, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422005 …. Pan:Aajpc9817C Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-I, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) on alleged on unproved loan of Rs.4,50,000/- by disregarding appellants contention. 4. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA Nos.742 to 747/PUN/2016 5. Briefly, in the facts of the case, search and seizure action under section

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

133A of the Act was carried out at the business premises of assessee on 27.04.2005. Simultaneously, search action was also carried out at the residential premises of assessee. The instant assessment year in appeal is the year of search. During the course of Survey, the assessee declared certain additional income on account of excess stock found from his premises

PRADEEP SWEETS PVT LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal of

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Vikas Awasthy

133A was carried out on the assessee company and its group concerns on 12.07.2011. During the course of survey action, assessee disclosed additional income of Rs.45 2 lacs for the impugned assessment year. The assessee thereafter, in its return of income declared the additional income disclosed during survey action. The Assessing Officer (AO) while framing assessment u/s

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

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO be deleted. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.2,20,617/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in building / construction

NILESH SUBHASH CHOPDA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) are not attracted. A 6 ITA No. 2088/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11 perusal of documents on record reveal that the assessee has filed original return of income on 14-10-2010 declaring income of Rs.25,40,210/-. Thereafter, survey action u/s. 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee in March, 2011. The assessee

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

133A was conducted at the premises of Mr Kishor Patil. When the fact that this kind of fraud was made in the name of number of persons all of them complaint to the Economic Offence Wing of Police Nashik, against the tax consultant Kishore Patil. The news regarding fraud committed by Kishore Patil also flashed in the daily news paper

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,JALGAON vs. THE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 296/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt Taradevi R Bafna 91, Subhash Chow, Jalgaon. Pan : Aadpb9424E . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Nasik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Challenged Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-12), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/07/2018 For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 28/06/2017 Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Nasik [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271Aab Of The Act.

section occurred.” Therefore, as impugned jurisdictional notice being illegal bad in law and hence penalty may please be deleted. 2. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstance of the case, the leaned CIT(A) has erred in holding said impugned notice is valid through it is not inconformity and without any specific charged, in accordance with mandates

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

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

133A of the act to justify the levy of penalty for concealment. 4. The assessed income was same as the returned income. 5. The taxes were paid and revised return was filed before issue of notices u/s 148, u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1). 6. Alleging that the return was revised during the course of assessment proceedings. 7. Holding

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

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

133A of the act to justify the levy of penalty for concealment. 4. The assessed income was same as the returned income. 5. The taxes were paid and revised return was filed before issue of notices u/s 148, u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1). 6. Alleging that the return was revised during the course of assessment proceedings. 7. Holding

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

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

133A of the act to justify the levy of penalty for concealment. 4. The assessed income was same as the returned income. 5. The taxes were paid and revised return was filed before issue of notices u/s 148, u/s 143(2) and u/s 142(1). 6. Alleging that the return was revised during the course of assessment proceedings. 7. Holding