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

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s. 271(1) (c) of the IT Act is ab-initio void, bad in law and is unsustainable.” The above Additional grounds are found overlapping on certain issues. However, they revolve around the legal issues; (1) the issues relating to applicability of the pre-amended Explanation 5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. (2) unsustainability of the penalty

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

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

2,70,22,050/-\n3. Penalty @ 100% of tax\nRs.2,70,22,050/-\n4. Penalty @ 300%\nRs.8,10,66,150/-\n5. Minimum Penalty levied @ 100%\nsought to be evaded\nRs.2,70,22,050/-\n09. Thus, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act which is 100% of the tax sought to be\nevaded is levied on assessee at Rs.2

TUSHAR R. JAGTAP,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

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

u/s 147 r. w.s 143(3) of the act which was in itself without following the law and the provisions of Income-Tax Act, 1961, though not appealed, deserves to be deleted. Just and proper relief be granted to me in this respect. ITA Nos.729 to 732/PUN/2015 ITA Nos.733 to 736/PUN/2015 3. Without prejudice to other grounds raised, on facts