DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the plethora of decisions placed on record. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the addition was made only on estimate basis and, therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 11. On the other

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the plethora of decisions placed on record. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the addition was made only on estimate basis and, therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 11. On the other

DILAWAR SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.933 To 935/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2009-10 To 2011-12 Dilawar Shaikh, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Super Profiles Pvt. Ltd., 13-A, Parvati Industrial Estate, Pune – Satara Road, Pune-411026. Pan : Aljps3300F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. D. Pathak Revenue By : Shri Abhinay S. Kumbhar Date Of Hearing : 18.07.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.07.2022 आदेश / Order Per Bench : These Are The Three Appeals Filed By The Assessees Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Commonly Dated 23.032018 For The Assessment Years 2009-10 To 2011-12. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.933/Pun/2018 For The Assessment Year 2009-10 Are Stated Herein.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the penalty proceedings are initiated. In support of this proposition, he relied upon the plethora of decisions placed on record. 10. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that the addition was made only on estimate basis and, therefore, the question of levy of penalty does not arise. 11. On the other

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

section 50 by reducing the sale consideration from the opening WDV and brought to tax a sum of Rs.44,63,718/-. This addition was not contested in appellate forum. Thus, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer attained the finality. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for alleging that the appellant firm

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

section 50 by reducing the sale consideration from the opening WDV and brought to tax a sum of Rs.44,63,718/-. This addition was not contested in appellate forum. Thus, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer attained the finality. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for alleging that the appellant firm

MOHITE AND MOHITE (ENGINEERS AND CONTRACTORS),KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, , KOLHAPUR

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.286 To 288/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14 To 2015-16 Mohite & Mohite Vs. Acit, Central Circle, (Engineers & Contractors), Kolhapur. 240/B, Mohite House, General Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur- 416003. Pan : Aacfm4102F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Suhas Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 21.12.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.12.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 15.02.2022 For The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In All The Above Captioned Three Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.286/Pun/2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Are Stated Herein.

section 50 by reducing the sale consideration from the opening WDV and brought to tax a sum of Rs.44,63,718/-. This addition was not contested in appellate forum. Thus, the assessment made by the Assessing Officer attained the finality. Simultaneously, the Assessing Officer also initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for alleging that the appellant firm

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

VANDERLANDE INDUSTRIES B.V. PUNE,PUNE vs. ADIT, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION-II, HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

191 ITR 634 (SC) which held that assessment order involves determination of income and tax as well and the assessment is an integrated process involving not only the assessment of the total income but also the determination of the tax. Further, the 4 ITA No. 559/Hyd/2017, A.Y. 2011-12 Tribunal placed reliance on the decision of Hon‟ble High Court

VISTEON ENGINEERING CENTER (INDIA) PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

191 (Part) and 192 (Part), Sub Plot No. B, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri Waghere, Pune-411018 PAN : AACCT2585N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Visteon Engineering Center

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. VISTEON ENGG. CENTER (I) PVT. LTD.,, PUNE

Accordingly, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

191 (Part) and 192 (Part), Sub Plot No. B, Mumbai-Pune Road, Pimpri Waghere, Pune-411018 PAN : AACCT2585N .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent आयकर अऩीऱ सं. / ITA No.540/PUN/2015 यनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle – 13, Pune .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Visteon Engineering Center

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2005-06

section 271 (1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2005-06. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee has been carrying the business in the automation and control industry. 2 Honeywell Automation India Limited Certain international transactions were reported in Form No.3CEB

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 14,, PUNE vs. M/S. LIFESTYLE LEISURES PRIVATE LIMITED,, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.580/Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-14, Pune. Vs. M/S. Lifestyle Leisures Private Limited, S.No.191, Tech Park One, Tower-E, Off Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune- 411006. Pan : Aaacl6291P Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 17.10.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-7, Pune’S Order Dated 11.01.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-7/Cir-14/10022/2018-19, Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short “The Act”. Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Coming To The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised In The Instant Appeal Challenging Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Deleting Section 271(1)(C) Penalty Of Rs.1,15,08,340/- Levied By The Assessing Officer Vide Order Dated 27.04.2018, We Note At The Outset

191, Tech Park One, Tower-E, Off Airport Road, Yerwada, Pune- 411006. PAN : AAACL6291P Appellant Respondent Revenue by : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee by : Shri Hari Krishan Date of hearing : 17.10.2022 Date of pronouncement : 17.11.2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JM: This Revenue’s appeal for assessment year 2015-16 arises against the CIT(A)-7, Pune’s order

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO 6 Atlas Copco (India) Limited A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at Rs.156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual

DY. CIT, CIRCLE-8, PUNE vs. ATLAS COPCO (INDIA) LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the Cross objections are partly allowed in so far

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.649/Pun/2013 & 1726/Pun/2014 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Dcit, Circle-8, Atlas Copco (India) Limited, Pune Vs. Sveanagar, Dapodi, Pune – 411 012 Pan : Aaaca4074D (Appellant) (Respondent)

271(1)(c) of the Act, again, on 29-12-2012, whose copy has also been placed on record. Thereafter, the AO 6 Atlas Copco (India) Limited A.Yrs. 2008-09 and 2009-10 passed the final assessment order dated 27-02-2012 u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the Act determining total income at Rs.156.73 crore. 8. From the above factual

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE vs. M/S. SAS RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (I) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

191 of the paper book. Further, we note that the details of activities are provided at Page No. 978 of the paper book wherein the assessee has been shown as vendor and the Institute has been shown as recipient of the said activities and invoice also raised on the name of SAS Institute based in USA. Invoice at Page

SAS RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (INDIA) PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 6,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

191 of the paper book. Further, we note that the details of activities are provided at Page No. 978 of the paper book wherein the assessee has been shown as vendor and the Institute has been shown as recipient of the said activities and invoice also raised on the name of SAS Institute based in USA. Invoice at Page

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 NASSHIK, NASHIK vs. HARSH CONSTRUCTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED, NASHIK

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Dcit, Circle – 1, Harsh Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Nashik Sanskruti, Murkute Colony, Vs. New Pandit Colony, Sharanpur Road, Nashik – 422002 Pan: Aacch2277H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj S. Dandgaval Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 03-07-2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-07-2024 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 20.12.2023 Of The Cit(A) / Nfac, Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Revenue In The Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) In Restricting The Disallowance To Rs.2,24,191/- As Against Rs.1,25,51,607/- Proposed By The Assessing Officer In The Remand Report As Against Rs.4,38,96,880/- Added By Him In The Order Passed U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

section 37 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and has added to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 4. Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed certain details, based on which the ld.CIT(A) sought remand report from the Assessing Officer, who proposed an addition

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