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

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, 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

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

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

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

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

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]

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] 2. The learned CIT failed to appreciate that before the CIT, the assesses

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

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

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

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. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

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

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,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. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants Pvt. Ltd. Appellant

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

ASHISH RAMESH OSWAL,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)\n\nAppellant contends that considering ratio of various courts on the point,\nassessment u/s 153C in case of Appellant may please be overruled/cancelled.\n\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

ASHOK BHARTI GOSWAMI ,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. Appellant contends that, jurisdiction assumed by learned AO was invalid,\nconsidering reference to Settlement Commission by Mr. Yuvraj Dhamale &\nM/s Wellbuild Merchants

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty\nproceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate\nparticulars of income are initiated separately.\"\n5.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the\naddition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the\nerstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in\nwhose name