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

41. We find the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Dhariwal Industries Ltd. (supra) also upheld the order of the Tribunal deleting the penalty on the ground that substantial question has been admitted by the High Court. The relevant observations of the Hon’ble High Court read as under: “5. As far as, Income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act was attracted and the Ld. Assessing Officer therefore had wrongly and unjustifiably levied penalty under the said section of Rs.12,24,938/-. 10. The appellant further humbly submits that in the case of the appellant, in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.ws. 147 of the Act dated 22/01/2024, the Ld. Assessing Officer

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

41,25,06,638 - Rs.1,39,38,45,890) after adjusting the incremental liability that may arise on disallowing health and education Cess. He, therefore, submitted that there is no basis for holding that the assessee has under-reported its income or done any act without good faith and due diligence and hence the provisions of section 270A

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

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the provisions of section 271AAB(1A) have also got two parts. As per the said sub-section, the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the provisions of section 271AAB(1A) have also got two parts. As per the said sub-section, the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed income

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

penalty provisions may be initiated.” It is well settled position in law that admission has to be construed as a whole, for the purpose of its evaluation. The Department cannot adopt “pick and choose” approach, by ignoring that part of the statement which is against the Departmental interests and adopting other part of the statement which suits the Departmental interests

M/S. M M BROTHERS,DHULE vs. ITO, WARD 1, DHULE, DHULE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) on the basis of which the penalty proceedings were initiated was neither communicated by the A.O. in the asst. order nor in the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) and therefore, the penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) passed in the instant case was bad in law in view of the 2 law laid down

MR VIKAS JAYRAM BHUKAN,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 12(3), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2483/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mr. Vikas Jayram Bhukan, Vs. Ito, Ward-12(3), Pune. Survey No.34, House No.80, Azad Chowk, Opposite Ramma, Lohegaon, Near Gram Panchayat, Pune- 411047. Pan : Alqpb0811K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By : Shri Kumar Manish Singha Date Of Hearing : 08.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 03.09.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstance Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Act It Be Held That The Notice For Levy Of Penalty Was Defective Since No Specific Charge Of Violation, Was Made Out In The Notice & Thus The Consequent Penalty So Levied Be Kindly Deleted.

41,160/-. The above assessed income includes unexplained income of Rs.43,51,400/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for furnishing of inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Subsequently, by an order dated 23.09.2015 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of Rs.13

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the declaration by the auditor regarding the completion of the project. Referring to pages 75 to 106 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he has allowed the claim made u/s 80IB

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

41 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the declaration by the auditor regarding the completion of the project. Referring to pages 75 to 106 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he has allowed the claim made u/s 80IB

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

41 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the declaration by the auditor regarding the completion of the project. Referring to pages 75 to 106 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) wherein he has allowed the claim made u/s 80IB

SATISH PANDURANG PAWAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITO WARD 2(1),NASHIK/, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.363/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Satish Pandurang Pawar, The Income Tax Officer, 602, Royal Orchid, Near Indian Vs Ward-2(1), Nashik. Oil Petrol Pump, Katraj Bypass, Ambegaon, Pune – 411046. Pan: Abfpp 1207 Q Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Yogesh Gawali – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani, Irs – Dr Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 03/05/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 07/07/2023 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(Appeal)National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dated 27.02.2023 Emanating From The Penalty Order Dated 24.01.2022 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Learned Cit Is Not Justified In Raising Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs.2,36,100/- On The Ground That The Assesses Has Furnish Inaccurate Particulars Of Income Without Appreciating That Satish Pandurang Pawar [A]

u/s 271(1)(c) was not justified in 'dew of the explanation offered by the assesses.” Brief Facts of the case : 2. The assessee is an individual. The Assessee filed Original Return of Income electronically on 29/06/2016 for A.Y.2016-17 declaring total income of Rs.6,31,400/-. In the original return the assessee had claimed deduction under Chapter

JAYANTI S KUNDHADIYA, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. PATIL CONSTRUCTION AND INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is hereby initiated separately on this issue.” 10. Similar disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer for assessment year 2014-15 at Rs.6,71,03,897/- and for assessment year 2015-16 at Rs.7,02,87,260/-. 11. Before the Ld. CIT(A) it was argued that the assessee has filed certain documents which