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

271(1)(c) was withdrawn and this direction was incorporated into the order. Since the assessee in his original return and the return filed in response to the notice under Section 153A did not offer his global income, therefore, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s

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

Section 153A, the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 153A is to be considered as return filed u/s 139, as the AO has made assessment on the said return and, therefore, the return has to be considered for the purpose of penalty u/s 271(1

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. During the course of such assessment proceedings, it was found that the assessee has taken cash loan of Rs.23,28,690/- from Aman Chote Vyapari Sahakari Patsanstha, Ichalkaranji in the year under consideration and paid the same in cash, thereby, for violation of provisions u/s. 269SS and 269T, the penalty proceedings were initiated

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

153A of the Act, on the following substantive grounds; ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 ITA No 407 & 408/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

153A of the Act, on the following substantive grounds; ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 ITA No 407 & 408/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

153A of the Act, on the following substantive grounds; ITAT-Pune Page 5 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 407 to 408 & 410/PUN/2024 ITA No 407 & 408/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act] 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred

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

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

153A / 143(3) of the Act wherein no addition regarding the unaccounted sale was made and the only addition made by the Assessing Officer was the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of Rs.18,01,430/-. 4. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee submitted that the declaration made during the course

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

153A / 143(3) of the Act wherein no addition regarding the unaccounted sale was made and the only addition made by the Assessing Officer was the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80IA(4) of Rs.18,01,430/-. 4. Subsequently the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB of the Act. The assessee submitted that the declaration made during the course

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/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, AURANGABAD.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

153A of the Income Tax Act issued to the assessee for the year under consideration. If no search action u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been conducted in the case of the assessee, the assessee would not have shown the said Undisclosed Income over and above its regular income. Hence, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

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

271(1)(c) of the Act by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 respectively. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all the above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal common order. 3. First, we shall take up appeal of the assessee

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

271(1)(c) of the Act in exercising of revisional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: - 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find the issue that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is could the CIT in exercise of power under Section

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act\nby Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16\nand 2016-17 respectively.\n2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all\nthe above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal\nemanate from records, we proceed to dispose of the same by this\ncommon order

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act\nby Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16\nand 2016-17 respectively.\n2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in all\nthe above captioned six appeals as per respective grounds of appeal\nemanate from records, we proceed to dispose of the same by this\ncommon order

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]

153A on 04/05/2018 accepting the Total Income of the assessee of Rs.4,61,02,130/-. The AO initiated Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act invoking explanation 5A . The AO levied Penalty only on one ground that the assessee offered additional income only because of search. Though