VINOD RAMCHANDRA JADHAV,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC-2(1), PUNE, 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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, I consider this to be a fit case for imposing penalty under Explanation 1 of section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealing this income and furnished inaccurate particulars of income. This penalty may range from 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded. To be fair

MR. CHITTARANJAN TRIMBAK GAIKWAD,PUNE vs. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) is imposable when there is a variation in assessed, and returned income. If there is no variation, there will be no concealment. When there is no concealment, question of lexy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) will not arise. This is settled position of law. The Concept of voluntary return of income may be important

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED ( SUCCESSOR OF ARICENT TECHNOLOGIES HOLDINGS LIMITED),PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

27. In the present case, neither in the assessment order dated 22.09.2022 nor in the subsequent show-cause notices, the Assessing Officer has specified that the case of the petitionercompany is covered under which part of sub-section (9) of Section 270A of the Act. Even in the impugned order dated 31.03.2023 also, it is not specified that which part

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(1)(c) of\nthe Act. We find the relevant observations of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court read\nas under:\n“12. After considering the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the\nparties, we are of the view that the argument of the learned counsel for the\nassessee has to prevail as it carried substantial weight

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

27. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Naveen Goswami v DCIT (supra) has also quashed the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAB of the Act on the ground that the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in not pinpointing the relevant limb of section 271AAB(a) to (c) vitiates the entire proceedings

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

27. We find the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Naveen Goswami v DCIT (supra) has also quashed the penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271AAB of the Act on the ground that the failure on the part of the Assessing Officer in not pinpointing the relevant limb of section 271AAB(a) to (c) vitiates the entire proceedings

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

27-05-2025 O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.01.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing of valves. It filed

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

27. By these amendments, the three categories were made for applying limitation for completing the penalty proceedings taking into consideration the various penalty proceedings for default of certain provisions of the Income-tax Act which are not necessarily linked with proceedings for any particular assessment year in the course of which only penalty proceedings were required to be initiated. Such

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 and the penalty for the search year was levied u/s 271AAB of the Act. 12.2 From the material seized in the course of search action carried on the assessee group on 21/08/2018 it revealed that, the assessee had sub-contracted certain projects/contracts to twelve sub-contractors

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 and the penalty for the search year was levied u/s 271AAB of the Act. 12.2 From the material seized in the course of search action carried on the assessee group on 21/08/2018 it revealed that, the assessee had sub-contracted certain projects/contracts to twelve sub-contractors

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

271(1)(c) of the Act for the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15 and the penalty for the search year was levied u/s 271AAB of the Act. 12.2 From the material seized in the course of search action carried on the assessee group on 21/08/2018 it revealed that, the assessee had sub-contracted certain projects/contracts to twelve sub-contractors

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 271(l)(c) of the Act requires the Ld. AO to record is satisfaction before imposition of penalty, the AO could not have imposed penalty merely because the assessee has not filed any response. The CIT(A) has held the order imposing penalty to be bad in law on this count too. The assessee submits that there

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there been no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made full and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) SA Nos.7

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there been no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made full and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) SA Nos.7

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee was taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there been no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made full and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) SA Nos.7

YOGESH SHIVAJI SHINDE ,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 without giving us any further opportunity to produce any explanation or documentary evidence.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual salaried employee filed return of income for the assessment year 2016-17 declaring taxable income of Rs.5,39,190/- after claiming various deductions of Rs.1