ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense

ASHOK VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender of income in this case is not voluntary in the sense

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender

SANJAY MANAKCHAND KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita Nos.435 & 436/Pun/2016 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13

271 (1) (c) of the Act. It is trite law that the voluntary disclosure does not release the Appellant-assessee from the mischief of penal proceedings. The law does not provide that when an assessee makes a voluntary disclosure of his concealed income, he had to be absolved from penalty. 9. We are of the view that the surrender

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

D M CORPORATION PVT. LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपील आयकर अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita No.110/Pun/2016 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Dm Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 240/B, ‘Mohite House’ Gen. Thorat Marg, Tarabai Park, Kolhapur-416 003 ………अपीलाथ"/Appellant Pan : Aadcm6281H Vs.

199 ITR 351. 5. In support of his contentions, Ld. Counsel brought our attention to the order of Tribunal in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Vikas Baurao Takawane in ITA No.2245/PUN/2014, dated 26-07-2017 and submitted that similar issue came up for adjudication before the Tribunal. In this case, the Tribunal held that such initiation and levy

NALCO WATER INDIA LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -2, , PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal, Vp & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm Assessment Year:2014-15

penalty proceedings under section 271(1) (c) of the Act. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. The Appellant requests the Hon'ble members a right to amend, alter, substitute or add to the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal

POPATLAL MOHANLAL CHORDIYA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

271[1][c] of the IT. Act was vague as it failed to clearly spell out the charge for levy of penalty and did not point out/indicate the alleged default committed by the appellant, the impugned penalty levied by the learned Assessing Officer is patently illegal, bad in law, arbitrary, perverse, without jurisdiction and being devoid of merits, the same

M/S. VISHAY COMPONENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 13,, PUNE

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

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

199 of the paper book wherein it is noted the Finished Capacitors was sold at Rs.1,539.36 Million (Rs.153.936 crores) and Resistors at Rs.593.06 Million (Rs.59.306 crores). Therefore, it appears the sale of products in finished category of capacitors and resistors amounts to Rs.2,132.42 Million (Rs.213.242 crores) as against the gross revenue from operations Rs.2,433.38 Million (Rs.243.338 crores

VIPUL NIRANJAN SHAH,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2, PUNE

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1453/Pun/2017 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mr.Vipul Niranjan Shah, The Deputy Commissioner Of 39, Mantri Court, Wellesley Road, Vs Income Tax, Circle-2,Pune. Sangam, Pune – 411001. Pan: Achps 9906 J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sagar S.Tilak– Ar Revenue By Shri S.P.Walimbe- Dr Date Of Hearing 17/03/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2022

section 14A of the Act and the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), Pune-5, Pune has erred in confirming the same. 6. The Assessee requests for affording any other relief as Hon. Tribunal considers appropriate. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any of the grounds of appeal.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION), CIRCLE -2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

penalty proceedings be overturned. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant TIBCO Software B.V. is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherlands. The company is engaged in sale of Software licences and provision of Software maintenance, Consulting and Training services in India. The return of income

TIBCO SOFTWARE BV,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (IT), CIRCLE-2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravisl.

penalty proceedings be overturned. The above grounds are without prejudice to each other.” 5. Briefly, the facts of the case are as under : The appellant TIBCO Software B.V. is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherlands. The company is engaged in sale of Software licences and provision of Software maintenance, Consulting and Training services in India. The return of income

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

199,374,944 (incurred by the Appellant on account of replacement of TBA/10 machines given to customers) as operating in nature for the purpose of computing operating margin of the Appellant. 11. Not permitting economic adjustment on account of differential rates of depreciation Erred in not allowing an economic adjustment, on account of difference in the rates of depreciation charged

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

ASSISTANT OINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. PYC HINDU GYMKHANA,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.179/Pun/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 5. Further, on the issue of allowing depreciation u/s.32 of the Act, in respect of the capital assets (building) purchased with exempt income, the AO held that the claim of depreciation is not allowable on the said assets. AO noted that