PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT , PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

PADMAKAR VISHWAS DATE,,BHOSARI vs. INCOME TAX E ASSESSMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.929, 930 & 931/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 Padmakar Vishwas Date, The Income Tax Officer S.No.218, Near Shri Krishn V –Tds(2), Pune. Mandir, Alandi Road, S Bhosari, Pune – 411038. Pan: Anhpd3804B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 All Dated 26.06.2023. Since Issue Involved Is Same, All These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By This Consolidated Order. We Treat Appeal In Ita No.929/Pun/2023 For A.Y.2013-14

220 were received. The letter dated 02/09/2022 came out of the blue 2. Levy u/s 234E came info force from 01.06.2015. It was not retrospective but proscriptive. It was only after the receipt of the letter dated 02/09/2022 that the Appellant went to the traces site and realized that levy for late filing of return u/s 234 had been charged

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, PUNE vs. GHANSHYAM J. SUKHWANI (HUF),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.773/Pun/2017 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Dcit, Central Circle-2(3), .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pune. बनाम / V/S. Ghanshyam J. Sukhwani (Huf), 32, Sukhwani Chamber, Pimpri, Pune-411008. ……""यथ" / Respondent Pan : Aabhs9560G Revenue By : Shri Pankaj Garg Assessee By : Shri Vipin Gujrathi सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 19.03.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 04.04.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Cit(A)-9, Pune Dated 22.12.2016 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Revenue Are As Under :- “1) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When The Assessing Officer Has Initiated Penalty After Observing That Both The Limbs Of The Default U/S 271(1)(C) Were Operative In The Instant Case. 2) On The Facts & The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 When The Assessee Has Concealed Particulars Of Income, I.E. Concealed True Profit, By Way Of Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income, I.E. Shifting Expenses Of 80Ib Projects To Non 80Ib Projects, Which The Assessing Officer Has Correctly Mentioned In The Assessment Order While Initiating The Penalty Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3) The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) May Be Vacated & That Of The Assessing Officer Be Restored.

220/-. At the end of the assessment, the Assessing Officer made four additions on different accounts. In all these additions, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings stating that “Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) read with Explanation-1 of the I.T. Act, 1961 has therefore been initiated separately” (para 2.9 of the assessment order). Similar is the language used

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

220 (SC). 9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel placing reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A) submits that the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) and does not require any interference

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE vs. M/S. FINOLEX CABLES LTD,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.86 & 87/Pun/2021 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Vs. M/S. Finolex Cables Ltd., 26/27, Mumbai – Pune Road, Pimpri, Pune- 411018. Pan : Aaacf2637D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Assessee By : Shri J. G. Pendse Date Of Hearing : 09.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2022 आदेश / Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am: These Are The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Pune [‘The Cit(A)’] Dated 12.10.2020 For The Assessment Years 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively. 2. Since The Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. For The Sake Of Convenience & Clarity, The Facts Relevant To The Appeal In Ita No.86/Pun/2021 For The Assessment Year 2010-11 Are Stated Herein.

220 (SC). 9. On the other hand, ld. Counsel placing reliance on the order of the ld. CIT(A) submits that the order of ld. CIT(A) deleting penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is based on the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samson Perinchery (supra) and does not require any interference

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

220/- was attributable to cash withdrawn from Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. from time to time and thereafter the said cash was deposited in the same Bank Account and Rs.1,00,000/- was received by cheque from Sunil R Pawar and rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case

LEELAVATI VIJAYKUMAR KOTECHA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2012-13 is

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 1294 To 1297/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2012-13

220/- was attributable to cash withdrawn from Jalgaon Janta Sahakari Bank Ltd. from time to time and thereafter the said cash was deposited in the same Bank Account and Rs.1,00,000/- was received by cheque from Sunil R Pawar and rejected by the Assessing Officer even during the remand proceedings. 4) In the facts and circumstances of the case

SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the following additions ADDITIONS 2000- 2001- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 SUSTAINED 01 02 1 Estimated Profit on 28,411 52,869 2,70,927 92,610 42,135 Undisclosed turnover 2 Amount shown as 5,16,776 appreciation in Capital A/c 3 Capital Introduction

SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the following additions ADDITIONS 2000- 2001- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 SUSTAINED 01 02 1 Estimated Profit on 28,411 52,869 2,70,927 92,610 42,135 Undisclosed turnover 2 Amount shown as 5,16,776 appreciation in Capital A/c 3 Capital Introduction

SANDIP D. PATIL, L/H OF LATE DINKAR A. PATIL,,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1 (2),, KOLHAPUR

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No’S.1680, 1681 & 1682 /Pun/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 1996-97, 97-98 & 1998-99 Late Dinkar Arjun Patil, The Income Tax Officer, L/H Sandip D. Patil, Vs Ward-1(2), Kolhapur. 790/40, Raigad Colony, Panchgaon Road, Kolhapur – 416008. Pan: Ahipp 8226 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 11/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Three Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Common Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur For Assessment Years I.E.1996-97, 97-98, 98-99, All Dated 23.07.2019, Emanating Out Of Orders Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 30.03.2009.These Appeals Were Heard Together & Decided By Common Order As The Issue Involved Is Same. For The Sake Of Convenience We Take The Appeal Number 1680/Pune/2019 Ay 1996-97 As Lead Case. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld Cit Erred In Not Accepting The Contention Of The Appellant That The Notice

penalty under section 271 (1) (c) in respect of the following additions ADDITIONS 2000- 2001- 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 SUSTAINED 01 02 1 Estimated Profit on 28,411 52,869 2,70,927 92,610 42,135 Undisclosed turnover 2 Amount shown as 5,16,776 appreciation in Capital A/c 3 Capital Introduction

TIBCO SOFTWARE B.V.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (IT), CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R.S.Syal & Sonjoy Sarma,Jm Assessment Year : 2014-15 Tibco Software B.V. ...... Appellant C/O Tibco Software India P.Ltd. 3 Floor, Binnarius,Deepak Complex, National Games Road, Shastri Nagar, Yerwada, Pune – 411 006. Pan : Aaect3252G V/S. Dcit(It),Circle-2, Pune ……Respondent

penalty proceedings against the Appellant under Section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.” 3. Briefly, the facts are under : 4. The Appellant TIBCO Software B.V is a non-resident company incorporated in Netherland. The Company is engaged in sale of Software maintenance, consulting and training services in India. The return of income for the Assessment

GRUPO ANTOLIN IRAUSA S.A.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY DIRECOTR OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryिनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Groupo Antolin Irausa S.A. Vs. Ddit C/O. B-25, Midc, (International Taxation)-1, Ranjangaon, Shirur, Pune Pune 412 220 Pan : Aadcg9626L Appellant Respondent

220 PAN : AADCG9626L Appellant Respondent Assessee by: Shri J.D. Mistri, Sr. Advocate Revenue by: Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav Date of hearing 27-07-2022 Date of pronouncement 28-07-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-13, Pune on 23-03-2017 in relation

INCOME TAX OFFICER vs. M/S. CARRARO TECHNOLOGIES INDIA PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

220 PAN : AACCC8571D ……""यथ" / Respondent Revenue by : Shri Sudhendu Das : Shri Kishore Phadke Assessee by सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 06.09.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of Pronouncement : 07.09.2018 आदेश / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM This appeal by Revenue is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune dated 06.09.2016 whereby penalty levied u/s.271

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AUTOCOMPS ENGINEERING (PUNE) PVT.LTD,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

220/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.29.09.2016 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)- 9/DCIT, Cir.8/93/2009-10) allowed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), Revenue is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds : “1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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