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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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,

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

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(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

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(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

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(1)(c) of the Act, evenly dated 18/05/2018 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Registry has pointed out that there is a delay of 1918 days in each

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

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

4. The order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed u/s 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

LEAR AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PVT.LTD,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 9,, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripote. आयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.1951/Pun/2018 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 Lear Automotive India Pvt. Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner E-25, 26 & 27, Bhosari Midc, Vs Of Income Tax, Circle-9, Pune – 411026. Pune. Pan: Aaacl 1978 K Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna & Chandani Shah – Ar(S) Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 20/10/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 04/11/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Pune, Dated 01.11.2018 For The A.Y. 2007-08 Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961(In Short “The Act”). The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. Erroneous Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 (‘The Ld. Cit(A)’) Erred In Upholding The Action Of Ld. Assistant Commissioner Of Income- Tax, Circle - 9 (‘The Ld.Ao’) Of Levying Penalty, Being 100% Of Tax On The Addition To Returned Income Amounting To Inr 38,37,270, Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act. Rs.38,37,270/-. 2. Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Are Invalid On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Action Of The Ld. Ao For

250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(in short “the Act”). The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Erroneous levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 6 (‘the Ld. CIT(A)’) erred in upholding the action

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, 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 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