VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

14-3-2018 Show cause notice for prosecution 31-3-2018 Penalty notices issued 10-04-2018 Prosecution proceedings SCN withdrawn 28-9-2018 Concealment penalty levied 5.5 Appellant has contended that the penalty order is barred by limitation of time. Hence, the provisions of section 275 are discussed hereunder for ready reference. Analysis of Section 275- From perusal

DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2010-11 Dcit, Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Central Circle 2(1), Vs. Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinod Ramchandra Jadhav Dcit, Plot No.42-44, Green Park Society, Vs. Central Circle 2(1), Pune Viman Nagar, Pune – 411014 Pan: Aanpj0592P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari – Cit & Shri Arvind Desai, Addl Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 23-01-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 21-04-2025 O R D E R

14-3-2018 Show cause notice for prosecution 31-3-2018 Penalty notices issued 10-04-2018 Prosecution proceedings SCN withdrawn 28-9-2018 Concealment penalty levied 5.5 Appellant has contended that the penalty order is barred by limitation of time. Hence, the provisions of section 275 are discussed hereunder for ready reference. Analysis of Section 275- From perusal

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

penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee‖. 12 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 7. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has made a bonafide claim which was approved by various High Courts in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxman.com 96 (Bombay) and Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals

ROHINI MARUTI DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

14,877/- and had opted for not revising the return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. 12. Now for such excess claim of deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act in the income tax return at ₹63,80,243/-, whether such mistake is liable to be visited by penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here

AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

14,877/- and had opted for not revising the return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. 12. Now for such excess claim of deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act in the income tax return at ₹63,80,243/-, whether such mistake is liable to be visited by penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here

TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

14,877/- and had opted for not revising the return of income during the course of assessment proceedings. 12. Now for such excess claim of deduction u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act in the income tax return at ₹63,80,243/-, whether such mistake is liable to be visited by penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here

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.

iii) CIT vs. Madhusudan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat). (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 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.

iii) CIT vs. Madhusudan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat). (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 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.

iii) CIT vs. Madhusudan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat). (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 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.

iii) CIT vs. Madhusudan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat). (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com

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

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

iii) CIT vs. Madhusudan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat). (iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

14-08-2023 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 01-08-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolhapur [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2005-06. 2. The Revenue raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 22.04.2022, the AO has held that in the return of income filed by the assessee, it has shown profit of Rs.81,51,03,640/- on unaccounted cash

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that in the assessment order u/s 143(3) dated 22.04.2022, the AO has held that in the return of income filed by the assessee, it has shown profit of Rs.81,51,03,640/- on unaccounted cash

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

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)

iii) on or before the specified date— (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and (B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein; (b) a sum computed at the rate of sixty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

271(1)(c) but not in the context of 270A, hence not applicable to facts of present case. Hence, I am of considered view that AO has rightly levied penalty u/s 270A of Rs.9,14,842/-. Consequently, Grounds of Appeal relevant to the issue are Dismissed. 5. Dissatisfied the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal and all the grounds

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

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

iii) ₹76,02,504/- towards disallowance of interest on TDS/TCS (iv) ₹28,580/- towards disallowance of penalty charges claimed (v) ₹11,00,000/- disallowance of claim of 80G etc. The aforestated additions and the assessment informed to have not been agitated further in appeal. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari Associates