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.

35 taxmann.com 395 (P&H) which was also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable

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.

35 taxmann.com 395 (P&H) which was also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable

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.

35 taxmann.com 395 (P&H) which was also confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the SLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 34. So far as the penalty on the major issue is concerned i.e. levy of penalty on the amount of Rs.39,20,00,000/- received by the assessee as salary which was not added by the assessee in its return of income being a non-resident, we find the Settlement Commission vide order dated

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 34. So far as the penalty on the major issue is concerned i.e. levy of penalty on the amount of Rs.39,20,00,000/- received by the assessee as salary which was not added by the assessee in its return of income being a non-resident, we find the Settlement Commission vide order dated

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

35 taxmann.com 395 (P&H) which was also confirmed\nby Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar\nMills (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the\nSLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable

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

35 taxmann.com 395 (P&H) which was also confirmed\nby Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar\nMills (P.) Ltd. [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) while dismissing the\nSLP filed by the Revenue, wherein it was held that penalty u/s\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act is not imposable if the issue was debatable

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

35. We have also noticed that Sections 271 and 273 were the two original penalty provisions, which require the penalty proceedings to be initiated during the course of relevant assessment proceedings or the other relevant proceedings as the case may be. The penalty proceedings could also be initiated during the appellate proceedings arising out of the relevant assessment proceedings

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

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

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

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. Before 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

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

ii) ACIT vs. Navratan Techbuild (2017) 82 taxmann.com 65 (Ind) 18. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that penalty proceedings are to be quashed on account of non-striking off of inappropriate words in the notice

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

ii) ACIT vs. Navratan Techbuild (2017) 82 taxmann.com 65 (Ind) 18. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that penalty proceedings are to be quashed on account of non-striking off of inappropriate words in the notice

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

ii) ACIT vs. Navratan Techbuild (2017) 82 taxmann.com 65 (Ind) 18. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). So far as the argument of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that penalty proceedings are to be quashed on account of non-striking off of inappropriate words in the notice

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

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

35,789 cost incurred during\nthe year of Rs.327,42,32,668 closing WIP of Rs.396,30,86,527 CENVAT credit of\nRs.10,54,94,659) on cost of sales (construction) during the year and it is exclusive\nof finance cost. Further, It is noticed that the assessee had debited entire interest\nexpenses of Rs.32,30,50,317 in profit

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that