JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s. 271(1)(c) on the basis of an invalid assessment order was null and void.‖ 21. In order to adjudicate the issues, we are referring to the facts and issues in ITA No.105/PUN/2016. The facts of present appeal are slightly at variance i.e. simultaneously to the search and seizure action under section 132 of the Act initiated against partners

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

34. So far as the penalty on the major issue is concerned i.e. levy of penalty on the amount of Rs.39,20,00,000/- received by the assessee as salary which was not added by the assessee in its return of income being a non-resident, we find the Settlement Commission vide order dated 26.05.2014 passed u/s 245D

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

34. So far as the penalty on the major issue is concerned i.e. levy of penalty on the amount of Rs.39,20,00,000/- received by the assessee as salary which was not added by the assessee in its return of income being a non-resident, we find the Settlement Commission vide order dated 26.05.2014 passed u/s 245D

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 271(1)(c) of the Act, whereas the penalty has ultimately been imposed for the other limb. The penalty order be treated as null and void. The Appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect. 3. The Appellant prays to be allowed to add, amend, modify, rectify, delete, and raise any grounds of appeal at the time

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

34,01,866/- (pages 187 and 235 of the paper book refers). 5.1 Referring to the amended provisions inserted with Finance Act, 2022 as an Explanation 3 to section 40(1)(ii) of the Act with retrospective effect from AY 2005-06 r.w.s. 155(18) of the Act, the Ld. AR further submitted that where an application is made

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

section 153A of the Act for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and also the income assessed thereafter and the penalties imposed from year to year is tabulated hereunder:- A.Y. Income as Date of Income as Income Income Penalty per Original original per return assessed concealed imposed return of return of u/s u/s (`) u/s income (`) income 148/153A 148/153A 271

NILESH SUBHASH CHOPDA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

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

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

2 of the appeal the assessee has assailed levy of penalty on the ground that the assessee has voluntarily disclosed the income in the revised return and the same was accepted by the Assessing Officer, thus, the provisions of section 271(1)(c) are not attracted. A 6 ITA No. 2088/PUN/2016, A.Y. 2010-11 perusal of documents on record reveal

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

2 Ashok S Agarwal 1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of the law it be held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) levied by the AO & confirmed by the 1st appellate authority is contrary to the provisions of law, unjustified & unwarranted. It further be held that the case of the appellant

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

2) The provisions of this section as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988), shall apply to and in relation to any action initiated for the imposition of penalty on or before the 31st day of March, 1989. Explanation.--In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of this

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

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,JALGAON vs. THE OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, NASHIK

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 296/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Smt Taradevi R Bafna 91, Subhash Chow, Jalgaon. Pan : Aadpb9424E . . . . . . . अपऩलधथी / Appellant बनधम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle, Nasik . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri Sunil Ganoo Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सपनवधई की तधरऩख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणध की तधरऩख / Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Is Challenged Against The First Appellate Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals-12), Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 30/07/2018 For Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Emanated Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 28/06/2017 Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-1(3), Nasik [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271Aab Of The Act.

271(1)(c), set aside penalty order. High Court took a view that where assessee in course of search admits undisclosed income and the manner in which such income has been derived, then provisions of section 271AAB would automatically be attracted and further the High Court opined that since opportunity of hearing as prescribed u/s 271AAB had been given

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

2] The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the levy of penalty was justified in respect of additional income of Rs.2,27,000/- offered on account of unaccounted cash payments for purchase of land and additional income of Rs.5,94,393/- declared on account of long term capital gains on sale of land without appreciating that no penalty