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

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, 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

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

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

139(1) on the date of survey and assessee\nhad included such declaration in its return filed u/s.139(4) subsequent to survey\naction cannot absolve it from the consequences of concealing such income.\nSubsequently it is abundantly clear from the provisions of Income tax Act, that the\nassessment and penalty proceedings are different proceedings from each other\nand they have

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

139(1) of the Act, there is no reason to levy penalty on the gross profit of Rs.81,51,03,640/- declared on the sales offered in the course of search action. 9. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not fully satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. So far as the argument that the exact clause of section

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

139(1) of the Act, there is no reason to levy penalty on the gross profit of Rs.81,51,03,640/- declared on the sales offered in the course of search action. 9. However, the Ld. CIT(A) was not fully satisfied with the arguments advanced by the assessee. So far as the argument that the exact clause of section

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

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

139(5) of the Act and therefore, is not a valid return. He further noted that the assessee has failed to record the receipts of Rs.49,64,120/- in his books of account having a bearing on the total income and therefore, the present case clearly falls under the provisions of section 270A(9

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

139(5) of the Act, has invoked the penal provision and after considering the submission of the appellant has finally by an order dt. 14/01/2022 u/s 270A of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹1,64,392/- i.e. @200% of tax sought to be evaded for under-reporting of income holding it is in the nature of mis-reporting

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

139(5) of the Act, has invoked the penal provision and after considering the submission of the appellant has finally by an order dt. 14/01/2022 u/s 270A of the Act imposed a penalty of ₹1,64,392/- i.e. @200% of tax sought to be evaded for under-reporting of income holding it is in the nature of mis-reporting

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.50,95,69,294/- levied by AO u/s 271

SMITA VIRENDRA LODHA,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-1, AHMEDNAGAR

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

139(1) of the Act. Had the AO not issued notice u/s 148, the entire taxable income of the appellant would have gone untaxed. Reliance is placed on the decision of hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Gangotri Textiles Ltd. Vs DCIT [2020] 121 taxmann.com 171 (Madras). In its decision the hon'ble court has held that

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

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

139(5) on 17/10/2016, showing Total Income of Rs. 4,61,02,130/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) on 28/04/2017. It means the department has accepted the revised return of the assessee. Subsequently on receipt of notice u/s 153A, the assessee filed a return showing Total Income of Rs. 4,61,02,130/- on 31/05/2017. Thus, the Total Income

KAVITA BALRAJ LANJILE,PASHAN vs. ITO, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

139(5) of the Act and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and also initiated proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for imposition of penalty. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 04.01.2017 and after considering the reply of the assessee, imposed penalty u/s 271

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished by the both the parties. In this regard, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information emerged at the time of search action

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished by the both the parties. In this regard, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information emerged at the time of search action

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished by the both the parties. In this regard, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information emerged at the time of search action

SOMNATH RAMDAS JADHAV,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ITO WARD2, AHMEDNAGAR

Accordingly, the appeal in ITA No.1092/PUN/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 involving the issue of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

9. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book and case laws furnished by the both the parties. In this regard, we find that the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act on the basis of information emerged at the time of search action

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever