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

e. 27.08.2015 (and not any earlier date of Settlement Commission proceedings). Typically, Penalty proceedings are initiated always during the assessment proceedings, wherein, point of "satisfaction" of concealment is reached. Now, perusal of the order u/s 245D(4) reveals that till the conclusion of hearings / proceedings, issues of QUANTUM of income were discussed and deliberated. Penalty proceedings, and related aspects

RAVI PICHAYA , DIRECTOR IN HEXTECH ENGINEERS INDIA PVT.LTD,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 1,, NASHIK

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

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

u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee being a substantial and beneficial shareholder.” 6.3 Accordingly, from the perusal of above reasons for reopening, we find that it was an independent decision and not based on the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s. Zetex Engineers Private Ltd. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee

RAVI PICHAYA,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

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

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

u/s 2(22)(e) in the hands of the assessee being a substantial and beneficial shareholder.” 6.3 Accordingly, from the perusal of above reasons for reopening, we find that it was an independent decision and not based on the decision of Ld. CIT(A) in the case of M/s. Zetex Engineers Private Ltd. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the assessee

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

e) failure to record any receipt in books of account having a bearing on total income; and f) failure to report any international transaction or any transaction deemed to be an international transaction or any specified domestic transaction, to which the provisions of Chapter X apply. 270AA. Immunity from imposition of penalty, etc. (1) An assessee may make an application

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

e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at ₹ NIL. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s. 143(2

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

e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at ₹ NIL. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s. 143(2

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

e-filed the return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 on 31/08/2015 declaring income of ₹ 30,190/- after claiming deduction u/s. 54F at ₹ 64,01,600/- and u/s. 54B at ₹ 28,80,560/- and has shown Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) at ₹ NIL. Case selected for limited scrutiny under CASS and valid notices u/s. 143(2

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

2)(a) to section 270A, a person shall be considered to have under-reported his income, if the income assessed is greater than the income determined in the return processed under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 143. As per the provisions of sub-section (9)(e), the case of misreporting of income referred to in sub-section

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

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

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of valves. It filed its return of income on 30.11.2013 declaring

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)

E Ward Shri Shahu Market Yard, Maharashtra – 416005. PAN: AABCT3335M Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee by Shri S. Sriram & Shri Samyak Lohade Revenue by Shri Ajay Kumar Keshri Date of hearing 17/09/2024 Date of pronouncement 30/09/2024 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This appeal filed by the Revenue is against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: ITA Nos.1634/PUN/2024 to 1636/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 28.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: ITA Nos.1634/PUN/2024 to 1636/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 28.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

E R PER R.K. PANDA, V.P: ITA Nos.1634/PUN/2024 to 1636/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 28.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

22-08-2007 as a starting point in contrast to the date when the approval\nwas first granted by the District Collector, Pune on 30-3-2007. Further, one needs\nto draw a line of distinction between an approval and a certificate. The\nrequirement of the section is the grant of approval and not the issuance of\ncertificate. Approval

MR. ANIL ANANDA POKHARNIKAR ,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(3) , PUNE

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

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

22,608/- u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, E) Non Speaking, arbitrary & mechanical Order and Violation of Pronciples of Natural Justice : 7. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred both on facts and in law, in confirming an mechanical, arbitrary, adverse, non-speaking Penalty Order passed by the learned Assessing Officer without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case

CHAITALI HOTELS,KOLHAPUR vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18 Chaitali Hotels Cit(A)-11, Pune 257, Kadamwadi Road, Vs. Kolhapur – 416005 Pan: Aagfc8348F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 04-06-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-06-2025 O R D E R

E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A)-11, Pune levying penalty of Rs.3,12,880/- u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18. 2. This appeal was fixed for a number

RAJARSHI SHAHU SHIKSHAN SANSTHA INAM DHAMANI,SANGLI vs. ITO EXEMPTION, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1121 To 1126/Pun/2024 Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18

271(1)(c)/270A of the Act whereas no penalty per se is applicable for income added u/s.115BBC of the Act. We also observe that section 68 converts any credit entry not shown as income in the books of account, into income. For example unsecured loan, share capital, other capital receipts, share premium, sundry creditors etc. whereas in case