CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

154 being reckoned from the end of the previous year commencing on the 1st day of April, 2021: Provided that in a case where the assessee makes an application to the Assessing Officer in the prescribed form and within the prescribed time, requesting for recomputation of the total income of the previous year without allowing the claim for deduction

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

u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act are initiated. Further, according to him, section 271AAB does not have two limbs whereas in section 271(1)(c) of the Act there are two limbs and therefore, he rejected the claim of the assesse challenging the validity of the penalty proceedings by distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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

u/s 271AAB(1A) of the Act are initiated. Further, according to him, section 271AAB does not have two limbs whereas in section 271(1)(c) of the Act there are two limbs and therefore, he rejected the claim of the assesse challenging the validity of the penalty proceedings by distinguishing the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court

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)

271(1)(c) of the Act, which had various Limbs, whereas Section 271AAB(1A) do not have any such. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) erred. Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in PCIT Vs. Sandeep Chandak [2018] 405 ITR 648 (All) dated 27.11.2017 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.04.2018. Ld.DR

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex parte order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

M/S. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE

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

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

u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing as under :- “4.3 Findings

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1) , PUNE vs. FIAT INDIA AUTOMOBILES PRIVATE LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

u/s 154 of the IT Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) vide order dated 07.02.2025 partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee & remanded the matter back to the file of the assessing officer to recompute the book profit by observing as under :- “4.3 Findings

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

u/s 234 had been charged. 3. The Department of Income Tax, through its Officers send such letters and intimidate the Assessee, leading him to spend money on the proceedings besides causing mental anguish. The ITD may be directed to pay and amount of Rs.25,000/- to the Indian Army Welfare Fund as compensation for this frivolous action. ITA No.929/PUN/2023

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION , KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nRs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons recorded/objections

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\nNil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through the reasons

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are\npartly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

271(1)(C) for furnishing inaccurate\nparticular of income are hereby initiated separately.\n10. After appreciating the above facts of the case the total income of\nthe assessee is computed as under:\nReturned Income\n: Nil\nAddition\ni. As per para 7\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\nAssessed Income\n: Rs.1,36,50,000/-\n16. Now on going through

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED , AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

154 of the Act on account of mismatch in prepaid taxes and interest. 3. Subsequently, the PCIT noticed that the assessee company received incentive from the Government of Maharashtra under the Package Scheme Incentives-2007 amounting to Rs.4,80,18,000/-. The assessee company has not given effect of the same as per provisions of section 43(1) Explanation