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"

172 (Bombay) the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act would not affect the assessment finalized prior to the date of the search. The Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal further held that the assessee can always argue his case afresh in the penalty proceedings on various issues which he had not argued during the quantum proceedings

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"

172 (Bombay) the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act would not affect the assessment finalized prior to the date of the search. The Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal further held that the assessee can always argue his case afresh in the penalty proceedings on various issues which he had not argued during the quantum proceedings

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"

172 (Bombay) the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act would not affect the assessment finalized prior to the date of the search. The Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal further held that the assessee can always argue his case afresh in the penalty proceedings on various issues which he had not argued during the quantum proceedings

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"

172 (Bombay) the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act would not affect the assessment finalized prior to the date of the search. The Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal further held that the assessee can always argue his case afresh in the penalty proceedings on various issues which he had not argued during the quantum proceedings

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"

172 (Bombay) the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act would not affect the assessment finalized prior to the date of the search. The Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal further held that the assessee can always argue his case afresh in the penalty proceedings on various issues which he had not argued during the quantum proceedings

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"

172 (Bombay) the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act would not affect the assessment finalized prior to the date of the search. The Hon'ble Pune Bench of the Tribunal further held that the assessee can always argue his case afresh in the penalty proceedings on various issues which he had not argued during the quantum proceedings

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 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)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20/12/2017. There is no dispute on these dates. Thus, the penalty order was passed within Six(06) months of passing the assessment order. The relevant Section 275 is reproduced here as under : Section 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant

RAJESH PRABHAKAR BHAVE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1717/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

172/-. ii) Interest income earned on FD and savings account Rs.4,58,788/- The Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions made. The Assessing Officer vide order dated 27.06.2014 levied penalty of Rs.4,17,447/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved by the penalty order dated 27.06.2014, the assessee filed

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH ,PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE, PUNE, SWARGATE, PUNE vs. SHREE CHANAKYA EDUCATION SOCIETY, AUNDH, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals filed by the Revenue and the Cross Objections filed by the assessee were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. 2. Facts of the case

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

AYOKI FABRICON PVT. LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2155/Pun/2016 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Ayoki Fabricon Pvt. Ltd., 137 To 139, Akshay Complex, Dhole Patil Road, Pune. Pan : Aabca5780F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle- 1(1), ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Nimit Gujarathi Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kamat, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 20.12.2018 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am : This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Pune Dated 14.06.2016 For The Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “1. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Disallowance Of Additional Depreciation Of Rs.1,10,53,748/- U/S 32(1)(Iia) On New Plant & Machinery On The Ground That The Assessee Was Not Engaged In The Business Of Manufacture Or Production Of Any Article Or Thing. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Ignoring The Fact That – I) The Details Furnished To The Assessing Officer By The Assessee During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Were Same As Were Furnished During The Assessment Proceedings U/S 143(3) & Therefore.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are being initiated.” 4. Aggrieved with the said reassessment order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) raising the legal objection in ground no.1 and questioning the validity of the reassessment proceedings and also the ground on change of opinion

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Penalty, proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) are initiated separately for furnishing in accurate particulars of income.” Therefore, AO suspected the purchase and sale transaction of shares which gave rise to the short term capital loss of Rs.8.39 Crore and treated the same as income of the assessee. Assessed income is determined at Rs.28,99,67,172/-. 15. Before

INCOME TAX OFFICER, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

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

4. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, in the light of various judgements including that of N.K. Industries Limited Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that instead of addition of whole of the purchase amount of Rs.2

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. ANIL JAIRAM GOEL, PUNE

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

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

4. Aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. The assessee failed to appear before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, in the light of various judgements including that of N.K. Industries Limited Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC was of the view that instead of addition of whole of the purchase amount of Rs.2

SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE,,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.348 To 350/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

u/s 69A of the Act. The addition made being illegal be deleted. 4. The issue raised in this bunch of appeals is against reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee during the course of hearing has also filed additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE,,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.348 To 350/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

u/s 69A of the Act. The addition made being illegal be deleted. 4. The issue raised in this bunch of appeals is against reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee during the course of hearing has also filed additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case

SMT. MANISHA RAJENDRA BHOSALE,,JALNA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, JALNA

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.348 To 350/Pun/2017 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12

u/s 69A of the Act. The addition made being illegal be deleted. 4. The issue raised in this bunch of appeals is against reopening of assessment under section 147/148 of the Act. The assessee during the course of hearing has also filed additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:- 1) On the facts and circumstances of the case