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

139(1) for assessment years 2007-08 to 2012-13 may be treated as returns in response to the notice issued u/s 153A of the Act. 3. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee took the decision to approach the Income Tax Settlement Commission and filed an application u/s 245C(1) of the Act on 20.03.2014 for settlement

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

139(1) of the Act. The assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was completed on 22.01.2014 at total income of Rs.49,96,650/- after making addition of Rs.8,29,550/- on account of profit from business, to the total income of Rs.41,67,100/- declared by the assessee. The Ld. AO also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

139(4) of the Act. The said return of income was filed pursuant to notice issued under section 142(1) of the Act. The assessee had included the additional income in his hands in the said return of income and the Assessing Officer had accepted the said income offered by the assessee along with certain additions i.e. on account

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

4. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee submitted that the declaration made during the course of search on account of sale of Gai Chap tobacco and other products was well before the due date for filing the return of income and even the financial year was not ended. It was submitted that

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

4. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee submitted that the declaration made during the course of search on account of sale of Gai Chap tobacco and other products was well before the due date for filing the return of income and even the financial year was not ended. It was submitted that

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

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(C) under which the assessee has committed default attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(C), hence the penalty may please be cancelled. 4) The lower authorities erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) Rs 362431 and it may please be deleted/cancelled. 5) The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of grounds taken above

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

139(1) 2012-13 30/09/2012 56,72,948 2013-14 30/09/2013 33,93,088 2014-15 30/11/2014 78,36,709 2015-16 29/10/2015 22,27,420 2016-17 15/10/2016 46,95,030 2017-18 02/11/2017 75,91,350 2018-19 09/02/2019 23,53,680 4. The search and seizure operations were conducted in the residential and business premises

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act only on the issue that interest earned from banks is not eligible for deduction. The relevant paragraph 5 and 6 of the penalty order is reproduced here as under : “05. From the Assessment Order u/s

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

139(1) of the Act. 6.2 However, in the penalty order, the Assessing Officer has levied penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act only on the issue that interest earned from banks is not eligible for deduction. The relevant paragraph 5 and 6 of the penalty order is reproduced here as under : “05. From the Assessment Order u/s

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, KOLHAPUR vs. VIJAYKUMAR RAJARAM SHAH,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISISONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LAXMI CIVIL ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT. LTD.,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm Sl.

139(1) for the year in which search action was conducted and hence, the computation of interest u/s. 234B made by the A.O. is correct." 55. After taking into account the various case laws referred by the parties and CBDT circular no. 20 of 2017, the Tribunal accepted the contentions of the assessee and held as under:- “12. Therefore

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) for concealment of income. I therefore levy a penalty of Rs.2,20,617/-. 5. The CIT(A) after deliberating upon the issue and various judicial pronouncements had dismissed the plea of assessee. 6. The assessee is in appeal against the order of CIT(A). 7. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee first referred

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

139(5) and assessment was made on the said revised return. The Assessing Officer could not have initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of additional income declared by the assessee in the revised return as there was no concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee in the revised return filed. Thus