SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct limb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification of the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio thereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed, demand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct limb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification of the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio thereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed, demand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct limb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification of the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio thereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed, demand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct limb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification of the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio thereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed, demand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct limb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification of the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio thereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed, demand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

274 of the Act and vide penalty order dated 18/05/2018, Ld.AO levied penalty of ₹18,00,580/- 7. Aggrieved with the order of penalty, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee 6 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) is in appeal before this Tribunal against levy of penalty u/s. 271

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

274 of the Act and vide penalty order dated 18/05/2018, Ld.AO levied penalty of ₹18,00,580/- 7. Aggrieved with the order of penalty, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee 6 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) is in appeal before this Tribunal against levy of penalty u/s. 271

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

274 of the Act and vide penalty order dated 18/05/2018, Ld.AO levied penalty of ₹18,00,580/- 7. Aggrieved with the order of penalty, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee 6 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) is in appeal before this Tribunal against levy of penalty u/s. 271

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, AURANGABAD.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

274 r.w.s. 271 of the Act for initiatingpenalty proceedings to which assessee submitted written reply. Assessing Officer having rejectedassessee's explanation, passed 10 a penalty order u/s 271AAB. Tribunal proceeding on presumption thatpenalty proceedings had been initiated u/s 271(1)(c), set aside penalty order. High Court took a view thatwhere assessee in course of search admits undisclosed income

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

271 of the Constitution. The phraseology employed in the Finance Acts of 15 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 1940 and 1941 showed that only the rates of income tax and supertax were to be increased by a surcharge for the purpose of the Central Government. In the Finance Act of 1958 the language used showed that income tax which

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

274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act the exact clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings were initiated was not mentioned. Therefore, the penalty proceedings are not in accordance with law and are void ab initio and therefore, such proceedings should be quashed. 7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was argued that

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

274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act the exact clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings were initiated was not mentioned. Therefore, the penalty proceedings are not in accordance with law and are void ab initio and therefore, such proceedings should be quashed. 7. So far as the merit of the case is concerned, it was argued that

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct\nlimb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification\nof the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio\nthereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed,\ndemand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be\nquashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

274 r.w.s 271 without specifying the correct\nlimb under which the penalty is initiated, such non specification\nof the correct limb makes the entire proceedings void ab initio\nthereby making the consequential proceedings, orders passed,\ndemand notices etc, bad in law, and therefore same shall be\nquashed.\n\n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 31.03.2016 but subsequently the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and only when the Tribunal reversed

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

274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 31.03.2016 but subsequently the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and only when the Tribunal reversed

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

274, copy of which is placed at page 116 of the paper book clearly shows that the penalty proceedings have been initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Therefore, when the Assessing Officer passed the assessment order on 31.03.2016 but subsequently the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the claim of deduction u/s 80IB(10) and only when the Tribunal reversed

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

271(1)(a) of the Act covers cases where the assessment to which the proceedings for imposition of penalty relate is the subject matter of an appeal to the Dy. Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner (Appeals) 10 ITA No. 1688/PUN/2018, A.Y. 2005-06 or an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal. Category (2) i.e. section

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

section 271(1)(c)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals