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.

iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against

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.

iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against

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.

iv) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose 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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandrasr No 1

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income tax Act, for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income are initiated separately." 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of assessment on the ground that the erstwhile company High Technology Transmission System India Pvt. Ltd. in whose name

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

iv)\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58\n(Delhi).\n(v)\nCIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023]\n456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh)\n(vi)\nCIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR\n722 (Bombay).\n(vii)\nCIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.,\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed

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

iv)\nOriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. DCIT, 394 ITR 58\n(Delhi).\n(v)\nCIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023]\n456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh)\n(vi)\nCIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR\n722 (Bombay).\n(vii)\nCIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.,\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

271(1)(c) of the Act. Though the appellant had cited a number of decisions in the submission made before him contending that penalty was not leviable in his case in view of the various decisions so cited, the AO in this regard in para 3.9 of the 3 penalty order merely stated that in view of the facts

CUMMINS INDIA LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.309/Pun/2014 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Cummins India Limited, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kothrud, Pune – 411038 …. Pan: Aaacc7258B Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle 1(1), Pune

u/s. 35(2AB) of the Act. 11. Initiation of Penalty Proceedings 11.1 The learned DCIT erred on the facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 12. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to the other. 3. The learned Authorized Representative for the assessee at the outset

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

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

u/s 271(1)(c) had erred in not appreciating the following important facts: a) The appellant had offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide act. b) In compliance of the disclosure, the appellant had filed the revised statement incorporating the additional income during the course of assessment proceedings also claimed the TDS voluntarily, which was remained

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

section 271(1)(c)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred both on facts and in law in passing the order. 2. The CIT (A) erred in law as well as on facts by deleting the penalty u/s 271

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. MANTRI HOUSING & CONSTRUCTIONS LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported

M/S. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,,PUNE vs. ITO, WD.-3(3),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported

ACIT, CIR.-1(2),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported

DCIT,CIR.-1(1),, PUNE vs. GLOBAL INFRASTRUCTURE & TECHNOLOGIES LTD.,, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue in ITA

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

iv) Shoorji Vallabhadas & Co. 46 ITR 144(SC) All these decisions were distinguishable by the CIT(A) in A.Y. 95-96 and not applicable to the facts of case of the assessee. He has erred in not appreciating the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Shiv Prakash Janak Raj & Co. reported

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit sworn by the Managing Director of the assessee company containing the reasons for delay in filing 3 ITA No.347/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 the appeal. After hearing the Ld. Representative

DCIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK vs. SHREE SAI PROPERTIES, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for concealment of income. [Addition Rs.7,93,62,371/-] 10. After going through the submissions and above mentioned discussion, the total assessed income of the assessee is as under : Total Income as per return : (-)Rs.1,95,25,614/- Add : As per discussion in para