VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

27,434/- accordingly quantum addition of only Rs.1,43,52,728/- was sustained. However, we find that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was calculated on quantum addition of Rs.1,95,13,037/- (1,82,13,037 + 13,00,000) which is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this regard, we further

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

27,434/- accordingly quantum addition of only Rs.1,43,52,728/- was sustained. However, we find that the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act was calculated on quantum addition of Rs.1,95,13,037/- (1,82,13,037 + 13,00,000) which is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. In this regard, we further

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the assessee subsequent to the order of the Tribunal obtained certain details from the office of the District collector, Pune under the RTI Act which are filed as additional evidences. Since these additional evidences go to the root of the matter, therefore, we admit the same and deem it proper to restore

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the assessee subsequent to the order of the Tribunal obtained certain details from the office of the District collector, Pune under the RTI Act which are filed as additional evidences. Since these additional evidences go to the root of the matter, therefore, we admit the same and deem it proper to restore

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the assessee subsequent to the order of the Tribunal obtained certain details from the office of the District collector, Pune under the RTI Act which are filed as additional evidences. Since these additional evidences go to the root of the matter, therefore, we admit the same and deem it proper to restore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 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

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 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.50,95,69,294/- levied by AO u/s 271 (l)(c

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