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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable. Ld. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court passed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014] 47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of deduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Here, we would like to take a note of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein Hon'ble Court has held that “A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars

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

276C or under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act on fulfillment of the conditions of sub-section (1) of Section 270AA after the expiry of the period of filing the appeal if the proceeding has not been initiated against the assessee under the circumstances referred to in sub- section (9) of Section 270A. 23. Sub-section (4) of Section

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable.\nLd. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\npassed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014]\n47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of\ndeduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

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

u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable.\nLd. AR also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court\npassed in the case of CIT vs. Madhusudhan Industries Ltd., [2014]\n47 taxmann.com 241 (Gujarat) wherein it was held that issue of\ndeduction was debatable one on which two opinions were

KISHOR MADHAV PARANJAPE,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.1887/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kishor Madhav Paranjape, The Dcit, Central 1139/516, Venu Apts, Vs Circle-2(2), Pune. Off F C Road, Shivajinagar, Pune – 411016. Pan: Abipp 3973 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Suhas P Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri S P Walimbe– Dr Date Of Hearing 28/06/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 30/06/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-12, Pune For The Assessment Year 2015-16, Dated 23.09.2019. 2. The Facts Emanating From The Assessment Order & Penalty Order Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Deriving Income From Business. He Is A Partner In Various Firms, Earning Share Of Profit, Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firms. It Is Pertinent To Note That All The Firms Wherein The Assessee Is A Partner, Are All Engaged In The Business Of Land Development & Building Construction. The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For Assessment

u/s 271(1)(c) was issued on 20/12/2017. There is no dispute on these dates. Thus, the penalty order was passed within Six(06) months of passing the assessment order. The relevant Section 275 is reproduced here as under : Section 275. (1) No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed— (a) in a case where the relevant

RAJENDRA MITHAILAL AGARWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

276C for the above years, I came to know that matters of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been decided against me by CIT(A). That I thereafter applied for certified copy of the Order on 4. 13.11.2017 which were provided to me. Thereafter I sought proper advise and have filed appeal before Hon Tribunal. 5. That the delay

RAJENDRA MITHAILAL AGARWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

276C for the above years, I came to know that matters of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been decided against me by CIT(A). That I thereafter applied for certified copy of the Order on 4. 13.11.2017 which were provided to me. Thereafter I sought proper advise and have filed appeal before Hon Tribunal. 5. That the delay

RAJENDRA MITHAILAL AGARWAL,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(1),, NASHIK

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

276C for the above years, I came to know that matters of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) have been decided against me by CIT(A). That I thereafter applied for certified copy of the Order on 4. 13.11.2017 which were provided to me. Thereafter I sought proper advise and have filed appeal before Hon Tribunal. 5. That the delay