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

251 ITR 99) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the view taken in the case of Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT can no longer be said to be applicable to section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s

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

251 ITR 99) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the view taken in the case of Shadilal Sugar & General Mills Ltd. Vs CIT can no longer be said to be applicable to section 271(1)(c). ITA No 410/PUN/2024 [Penalty u/s

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

251 (1)(b) of the Act. Non-levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c); 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT has heard the quantum appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, as per the section 275(1)(A), learned AO be directed to impose penalty based on the order

NEELESH SATISH KANADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,,

In the result, the appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryनिर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Neelesh Satish Kanade, Vs. Acit, 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Central Circle-2(1), Model Colony, Pune Pune 411 016 Pan : Agdpk4376L Appellant Respondent

u/s 271(1)(c) and second, where the CIT(A) enhances the penalty already imposed by the AO de hors any enhancement made by him in the quantum proceedings, of course, subject to rider that he cannot travel beyond the penalty order for making the enhancement. Section 271(1)(c) covers the former situation. We are not confronted with such

SANJAY NAMDEO BHARTI,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri "ी "ी क"णाकरा राव क"णाकरा राव लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी एवं "ी िवकास अव"थी "याियक सद"य के सम" "याियक सद"य के सम" D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 155/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2001-02 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on said addition. On appeal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) cancelled the penalty. The Department carried the matter in second appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by observing as under : “The case of the assessee is that it has agreed to the addition made

PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 12,, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No. 490/Pun/2019 करिनधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year :2015-16 Shri Praphull Kaluram Shivale, 234, Balu Shetpabal Road, Vadhu Budruk, Shirur,Pune – 412216 Pan :Bfqps4176B . . . . . . . अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 12, Pune . . . . . . . ""थ" / Respondent "ारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri B. C. Malakar Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing :16/08/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement :26/08/2022 आदेश / Order Per G.D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal Of The Appellant Assessee Is Challenged Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Pune [For Short “Cit(A)”] Dt. 14/02/2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which In Turn Dove Out Of Order Of Penalty [For Short “Po”] Of Asstt. Commission Of Income Tax, Circle-12 Pune [For Short “Ao”] Dt.28/06/2018 U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2015-16. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 14

section 271(1)(c), by an order imposed a penalty of ₹76,80,877/- (rounded up to ₹77,00,000/-)equal to 100% of tax sought to be evaded on additional business income brought to tax and assessed u/s 143(3) of the Act., over & above the income returned in original return of income filed by the appellant assessee

SHRIKANT GAJANAN VYAVAHARE,KAMATWADE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.893/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.06, S.No.16/3/1, V Nashik. Samarth Bungla, Near S Modakeshwar Mandir, Modakeshwar Nagar, Kamatwade, Nashik – 422010. Pan: Aakpv1138N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Miss Abhilasha Sanjay Pawar – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 14/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 14/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of Rs.82,093/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law. Shrikant Gajanan Vyavahare [A]

u/s 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Though the appellant had appealed against the additions made by the Assessing Officer he did not comply with the notices of hearings of the appeals from the undersigned. Under the circumstances I am compelled to believe that the appellant has nothing to submit against the penalty made by the Assessing Officer

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.\"\n\n46. In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC restored the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:\n\n“7.6.1 The appellant in his written submission has furnished that these provisions not available and already added back in the computation of the income

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

section 251(1)(a) of the Act and send the matter back to the AO for verification on the issue of disallowance of write back provision for standard assets amounting to Rs.31,14,41,362/-. 4) On the facts and the circumstances and in law, the ld CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the assessee had failed

SATYAPREM RAJABHAU DHOLE,BEED vs. ITO, WARD-1(5), AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

251(1)(a) of the Act. Before us, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. Rajeev Bansal (supra) on the ground that the notice issued to the assessee under section 148 of the Act is barred

SUJATA MAHENDRA NAWANDER,JALNA vs. ITO WARD 3, JALNA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1568/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Sujata Mahendra Nawander, V The Income Tax Officer, 19, Manmohan Vidya Nagar, S Ward-3, Jalna. Mantha Road, Jalna-431203. Maharashtra. Pan: Aeppn7756M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshit S Kabra – Ar(Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 14/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 22/07/2025

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) for concealed the particulars of income and furnished inaccurate particulars, which may kindly be dropped. 4. The appellant may kindly be allowed to add and amend the grounds of appeal.” Submission of Ld.AR : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) for the Assessee submitted that assessee’s appeal was dismissed by the ld.CIT(A) without discussing

BALU VITHAL PAWALE,PUNE vs. ITO WD- 2(4), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2869/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Balu Vithal Pawale, V Assessing Officer, Village-Kasarsai, S National Faceless Taluka-Mulsi, Assessment Centre, Dist-Pune – 410506. Delhi Pan:Bfcpp7170L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri B.S.Rajpurohit Revenue By Shri Madhukar Anand-Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 08/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 14/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 16.10.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 147R.W.S 144 Read With Section 144B Of The Act, Dated 27.03.2022. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

251(2) of the Act which requires the CIT(A) to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised by the appellant before him. Accordingly, the law does not empower the CIT(A) to dismiss the appeal for non- prosecution as is evident from

NAMDEO INDARRAO GORE,PUNE vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 5 PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1397/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Namdeo Indarrao Gore, The Dy.Commissioner Of Subhadra Cme Engineers, V Income Tax, Plot No.1, Subhadra House, S Circle-5, Pune. Nanded Phata, Maharashtra – 411041. Pan: Aavpg0671L Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rohit S. Tapadiya – Ca Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Ar Date Of Hearing 27/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.10.2023. The Assessee For A.Y.2015-16 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Making & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.30,71,906/- U/S 41(1) Of The Income Tax Act On Account Of Unpaid Sundry Creditors. Namdeo Indarrao Gore [A]

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before ld.CIT(A), assessee failed to file any submission, though ld.CIT(A) had issued five notices. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition as no submission was filed by assessee to rebut

ANIL TARACHAND KADU,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1058/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2013-14 Anil Tarachand Kadu, The Deputy Gut No.115, Ranjankhol, V Commissioner Of Income Tilaknagar, Ahmednagar, S Tax, Central Cirlce-1(1), Ahmednagar – 413720. Pune. Pan: Aplpk9182P Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Vinita Shah – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 02/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 07/05/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2013-14 Dated 07.08.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Act, 1961 Dated 20.06.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Well As In Law, The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing The Ex-Parte Order, Without Anil Tarachand Kadu [A]

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, 1961, on the issue of alleged undisclosed Long Term Capital Gain of Rs.41,98,221/-, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) : 2. The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR

A RAYMOND FASTENERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-8, PUNE

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri G.D. Padmahshali, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.311/Pun/2021 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-17 A Raymond Fasteners India P.Ltd., G. No. 259, 276/8B, Nighoje, Chakan, Taluka – Khed, Pune – 410 501. .......अपीलाथी / Appellant Pan : Aagca7184G

u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act”. 2 A.Y. : 2016-17 A Raymond Fasteners India P.Ltd., . Heard both the parties. Case file perused. 2. The assessee raises the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :- “1. erred in assessing the total income at INR 8,17,88,857 as against

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. SUNIL ASHER, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1289/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 The Income Tax Officer, V Sunil Asher, Ward-6(1), Pune. S B-602, Verde Residence Collection, Near Gurunanak Dairy, Kalyaninagar, Maharashtra – 411037. Pan: Acapa1980B Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 24/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 18.04.2024 For The A.Y.2016-17, Emanating From Assessment Order U/Sec.144 Of The Act For A.Y.2016-17, Dated 16.12.2018. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Id. Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Made U/S 68 Of The Act, By Accepting The Claim Of The Assessee That The Source Of The Investments Of Rs.5.87 Cr. Are Lifetime Accumulations & Savings Of The Assessee Made Out Of Earnings In Canada & Thailand, As Well As In India, Without Appreciating The Fact That Assessee Has Failed To Produce Any Supporting Documentary Evidences During The Assessment Proceedings Before The Ao. While Doing So, The Ld.Cit(A) Also Failed To Actually Examine Whether The Accumulations Claimed To Be Past Savings, Were Disclosed In The Itrs Filed For The Respective Years & Offered To Tax.

u/s 68 of the Act, by accepting the claim of the assessee that the source of the investments of Rs.5.87 Cr. are lifetime accumulations and savings of the assessee made out of earnings in Canada and Thailand, as well as in India, without appreciating the fact that assessee has failed to produce any supporting documentary evidences during the assessment proceedings

RATNAGIRI.ITO1@INCOMETAX.GOV.IN, RATNAGIRI vs. MANGALA HARI INGALE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is Partly Allowed for Statistical Purpose

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1056/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 The Income Tax Officer-1, Mangala Hari Ingale, Ratnagiri. V G-1604, Empire Square, Near S Auto Cluster Chinchwad East, Pune City, Chinchwad East S.O., Pune – 411019. Pan: Aaipi0141G Appellant / Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Ramnath P Murkunde – Dr Date Of Hearing 01/04/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 02/04/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 14.08.2023. The Revenue For A.Y.2018-19 Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “I. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Accepting The Self-Serving Documents Not Corroborated By Evidence & Which Had Not Stood The Test Of Enquiries In Assessment Proceedings. Ii. The Ld.Cit(Appeals) Erred In Not Allowing The Ao To Examine The Additional Evidence Admitted By Him As Per The Provisions U/S Mangala Hari Ingale [R]

u/s 69 of the Act. vi. The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC may be set- aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. vi. The appellant craves leave to add, amend or alter any ground/grounds, which may be necessary.” 2. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee

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

u/s 144 of the Act made the addition. When the matter was carried before Ld.CIT(A), he granted relief to the assessee. Before us, one of the grounds raised by the Revenue is violation of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules. At this moment it would be relevant to refer to provisions of Rule 46A which reads