SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the\nSLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable.\nLd. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\npassed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014]\n47 taxmann.com

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

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

159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the\nSLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable.\nLd. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\npassed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014]\n47 taxmann.com

MOHAN N. SHETTY,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

u/s 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the order levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the absence of recording of satisfaction as to which limb of said section has not been satisfied by the assessee and further also in holding the assessee to be liable to levy

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]

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 and 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

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

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years deleted all the above three additions. 8. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years deleted all the above three additions. 8. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue

BANSAL LAND DEVELOPERS,PANVEL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 1, PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 43CA is not sustainable. 5.5 Whereas, the appellant has not submitted necessary documentary evidences as per the sub section (4) of the Act that, the amount of consideration or a part thereof has been received by the appellant from the said buyers of the flat by any made other than cash on or before the date of agreement

BHARAT SHIVAJI CHAVAN,SONARSIDDHNAGAR vs. ITO WARD 5, SANGLI, SANGLI

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.876/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Bharat Shivaji Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, At Sonarsiddhnagar, Post S Ward-5, Sangli. Kowthali, Tal Atpadi, District Solapur, Kotali – 413101. Maharashtra. Pan: Auwpc0996M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Piyush Bafna & Shri Aakash Parakh – Ar’S Revenue By Shri Rajesh Haladkar – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 25/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 26/06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Dated 30.01.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed U/S.144 R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 25.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(b), 271(1)(c) and 271D of the Act. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, modify, vary, or withdraw all or any of grounds of appeal, in the interest of justice, if necessary, at the time of hearing of the appeal.” Submission of ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR for the assessee filed

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 initiated separately for concealment of income." 5. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 11.02.2020. In the meantime, the Ld. PCIT examined the records and noted that the order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. He noted that during

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

The appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

MITHI SOFTWARE TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2371/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Mithi Software Technologies V The Income Tax Private Limited, S Officer, 101, Mayfair Court, Nachiket Ward-14(3), Pune. Park, Baner Road, Pune – 411045. Pan: Aabcm9352P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 24/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Addl./Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal), Agra Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2014-15 Dated 25.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order U/S.143(3) Of

Penalty proceedings are being initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 2.1 Thus, Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.75 lakhs without referring to any section. Aggrieved by the same, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition stating that Assessee failed to discharges its onus that borrowed funds were utilized