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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

u/s Year original return assessed 153A 153A 2005-06 1,08,900/- 4,63,707/- 4,65,638/- 4,65,

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271

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

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 2 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) 1961 (“Act”) which are arising out of penalty orders passed u/s. 271

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

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

In the result, appeals in the case of Shailesh Mahadev Joshi are dismissed and appeals in the case of different assessee being partnership firms are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.107 & 108/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, and fact and circumstances in the appellant case. 5 The order of penalty is bad in law for the reason that the notice for initiation of penalty as to whether it is concealment of income

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANAGBAD., AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD.

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Act which turndown separate orders of penalty [from now ‘PO’] passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AAB of the Act by the Dy. Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad [from now ‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20 [from now ‘AYs’] respectively. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PVT LTD, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Act which turndown separate orders of penalty [from now ‘PO’] passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AAB of the Act by the Dy. Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad [from now ‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20 [from now ‘AYs’] respectively. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD. vs. SHREEHARI ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

The appeals of the REVENUE are ALLOWED

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Hon’Ble Shri Vinay Bhamore

250 of the Act which turndown separate orders of penalty [from now ‘PO’] passed u/s 271(1)(c) & 271AAB of the Act by the Dy. Commission of Income Tax, Central Circle-1, Aurangabad [from now ‘Ld. AO’] anent to assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2019-20 [from now ‘AYs’] respectively. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 16 DCIT Vs Shreehari

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 of CIT Appeal IV, Pune in respect of the said assessee is received on 08/08/2016 and hence the appeal for due for submission on or before 07/10/2016. 2) The appeal is being submitted on 2nd January, 2017 and thus there is a delay of about 87 days. 3) There were multiple appeals pending before the CIT appeals

SUVARNYUG SAHKARI BANK LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

250 of CIT Appeal IV, Pune in respect of the said assessee is received on 08/08/2016 and hence the appeal for due for submission on or before 07/10/2016. 2) The appeal is being submitted on 2nd January, 2017 and thus there is a delay of about 87 days. 3) There were multiple appeals pending before the CIT appeals