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

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate

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

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate

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

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate

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

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate

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

MCM DEVELOPERS,AURANGABAD vs. DCIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

153C of the Act on 07/05/2021 is rectified as under: “5.9 Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,22,21,350/-(Rs.2,50,14,000- Rs. 1,06,92,650- Rs. 21,00,000) is being made under the head Profits and gains of business and profession. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of Income Tax Act are hereby initiated for under-reporting

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

section 153C of the Act w.r.e. from 2013, apply to the year under consideration. Considering the above settled legal proposition on this issue (common in both the appeals), we do not find force in the order of the CIT(A). Accordingly, we set-aside the order of the CIT(A) and quash the reassessment orders made by the Assessing Officer

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.” 13. The Tribunal in earlier order

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.” 13. The Tribunal in earlier order

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.” 13. The Tribunal in earlier order

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.” 13. The Tribunal in earlier order

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

153C for assessing the undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee firm as against notice u/s. 148 issued by him and therefore, the assessment order passed u/s. 147 is bad in law and accordingly, the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.” 13. The Tribunal in earlier order

PAWAN VIJAY JADHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.811 & 812/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Mr. Pawan Vijay Jadhav, Row House No.1, Suyojit Garden, Near Sahadeo Nagar, Gangapur Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422103 …. Pan: Aitpj3384K Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-1, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) a sum of Rs.33,825/- by disregarding the appellant’s contention that the alleged additions were merely on account of treating part of the agriculture income as income from Other Sources and same are not based on any incriminating material found during the search. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

PAWAN VIJAY JADHAV,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.811 & 812/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Mr. Pawan Vijay Jadhav, Row House No.1, Suyojit Garden, Near Sahadeo Nagar, Gangapur Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Nashik – 422103 …. Pan: Aitpj3384K Vs. The Income Tax Officer (Central)-1, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Nashik

u/s 271(1)(c) a sum of Rs.33,825/- by disregarding the appellant’s contention that the alleged additions were merely on account of treating part of the agriculture income as income from Other Sources and same are not based on any incriminating material found during the search. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

LATE SHRI BABANLAL B AGARWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,, JALGAON

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is unsustainable in law. For this proposition, ld. Counsel relied on the various decisions including the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri V. L. Khandge vs. ITO in ITA No.1971/PUN/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07 dated 24.04.2018 and submitted that this appeal also pertains

ANIL BABANLAL AGRAWAL,,JALGAON vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeals of assessee are allowed and appeals of Revenue are dismissed

u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act is unsustainable in law. For this proposition, ld. Counsel relied on the various decisions including the decision of the Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri V. L. Khandge vs. ITO in ITA No.1971/PUN/2014 for the assessment year 2006-07 dated 24.04.2018 and submitted that this appeal also pertains