JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

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

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)

149/- Tax on inaccurate income after surcharge Rs 50,95,69,294/- and cess Penalty leviable under section 271(1)c) 100% Rs.1,52,87,07,882/- to 300% of the tax payable Accordingly, a penalty of Rs 50,95,69,294/- is hereby imposed on the assessee, u/s 271 (1)c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. Demand and challan

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

u/s 148 was issued to the assessee on 07.04.2022 which is clearly beyond the time limit prescribed under the said provisions of the Act. We find that the Revenue has also conceded before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajeev Bansal (supra) that the provisions of Taxation and Other Laws (Relaxation and Amendment of Certain Provisions

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-\"\n6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

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

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

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

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

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

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

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

149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that,— (a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred

LATE SHRI BABANLAL BHIKULAL AGRAWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.19/Pun/2015 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04 Late Shri Babanlal Bhikulal Agrawal, Through L/H Shri Anil Babanlal Agrawal, 84-85, Main Road, Raver, Dist. Jalgaon-425508 .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aabha7676P बनाम / V/S. Ito, Ward-2(2), ……""यथ" / Respondent Jalgaon. Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri Vijay Netke सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10.02.2020 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 12.02.2020 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Cit(A)-2, Nashik Dated 28.10.2014 For The Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1] The Ld.Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming Penalty Imposed Of Rs. 10,12,126/- U/S.271(1)(C) On Account Of Alleged Addition Made At Rs.32,13,100/(Inclusive Of Enhanced Income), Without Establishing Any Alleged Facts/Thing & Bringing Any Corroborative Evidence On Record, Even In Penalty Proceedings & Hence, Penalty Be Deleted 2] On The Facts & In The Prevailing Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) Has Grossly Erred In Confirming The Penalty U/S.271(1)(C) Of The I T Act, Without Rebutting Any Contention Of The Appellant Filed Before Him. Therefore

1) of section 142 has been issued to him, or (b) a return of income has been furnished by such other person but no notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has been served and limitation of serving the notice under sub-section (2) of section 143 has expired, or (c) assessment or reassessment, if any, has been made

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

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

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during

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

Penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of\nincome.\"\n5.\nThe assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime,\nthe Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the\nAssessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted\nthat during