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

section when the assessee has furnished all the particulars of income, which are not found to be inaccurate. It is up to the authorities to accept the claim of the assessee or not, but that cannot call for imposition of penalty. We also find merit in the argument of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that treating the issue of residential

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.

271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different

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

TEJAS SHIVAJI ADSUL,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

44 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

KAVITA BALRAJ LANJILE,PASHAN vs. ITO, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1758/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Kavita Balraj Lanjile, Vs. Ito, Ward-11(2), Pune. Flat No.401, Bldg. No.A-2, Shivranjan Tower, Someshwarwadi, Pune- 411008. Pan : Aaqpl5138C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bharat Shah Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 14.10.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 23.01.2024 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is An Individual Having Income From Profession & Business Income In The Shape Of Interest On Capital & Remuneration From Partnership Firm & Also Agricultural Income. The Assessee Furnished Her Return Of Income On 17.07.2014 Disclosing Professional Income, Income From Other

271(1)(c), read with section 274 of IT Act. True, the assessment proceedings form the basis for the penalty proceedings, but they are not composite proceedings to draw strength from each other. Nor can each cure the other's defect. A penalty proceeding is a corollary; nevertheless, it must stand on its own. These proceedings culminate under a different

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years deleted all the above three additions. 8. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue

DCIT, PUNE vs. BAJAJ ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PUNE

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

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

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 7. In appeal, the CIT(A) / NFAC following the order of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for the preceding assessment years deleted all the above three additions. 8. Aggrieved with such order of CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue

L K SONS ALLOY PVT. LTD. ,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-9, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. The appeal of the assessee against the penalty order passed by the Ld. AO has been confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his impugned order dated 08.02.2019 observing as under: “2. The grounds of appeal object to levy of penalty of Rs. 14,53,890/- u/s. 271(1)(c). During

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRAHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

44,630/- as against the returned income of Rs.23,83,97,010/-, wherein he made an addition of Rs.8,33,51,448/- to the income determined u/sec.143(1)(a) by making addition of the difference between the profit estimated @ 10% and the profit declared by the assessee @ 7.37% of the total turnover. Since the Assessing Officer, neither in the assessment

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NASHIK vs. CHAKRADHAR CONTRACTORS AND ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED, JALGAON

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

44,630/- as against the returned income of Rs.23,83,97,010/-, wherein he made an addition of Rs.8,33,51,448/- to the income determined u/sec.143(1)(a) by making addition of the difference between the profit estimated @ 10% and the profit declared by the assessee @ 7.37% of the total turnover. Since the Assessing Officer, neither in the assessment

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SMT ANJALI PRAPHULL SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3), PUNE

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

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

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

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

u/s 80G of the Act. However, in the computation of income, the assessee has disallowed only Rs.1,65,88,790/-. The Assessing Officer therefore, asked the assessee to explain as to why the differential amount of Rs.28,08,900/- should not be disallowed and added back to the total income of the assessee. In absence of any satisfactory explanation given

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

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

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