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

SUMIT LALCHAND PAHUJA,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumit Lalchand Pahuja, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), House No.2719, Gandhinagar, Kolhapur. Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416119. Pan : Bohpp0806D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When The Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Bad In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Based On Erroneous Facts & Without Proper Application Of Mind By Assessing Officer As The Assessee Did Not Held Any Account With M/S Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the said unexplained income of Rs.1,03,90,206/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & since the assessee remained absent the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide impugned order dated 28.12.2023. 5. Being aggrieved with

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income. [Addition Rs.7,93,62,371/-] 10. After going through the submissions and above mentioned discussion, the total assessed income of the assessee is as under : Total Income as per return : (-)Rs.1,95,25,614/- Add : As per discussion in para

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

ADISH SHANTILAL SOLANKI,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

DEEPAK KANTILAL JAIN ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE , PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

271 (SC)\nB) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune\nITAT)\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n6.\n7.\nAppellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants