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

penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.” 18. He submitted that since the order was passed by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) and Section 245H(1A), which are categorized as "any other case, therefore, the order passed u/s 271

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

The appeal stands dismissed

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

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

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

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

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

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

271 (SC) B) Rajendra Rameshlal Gugale v. PCIT-ITA_No.1676/Pune/2024 (Pune ITAT) Appellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point, assessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled. 6. 7. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid, considering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale & M/s Wellbuild Merchants