JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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 could not be deleted on this ground. Although there is a contrary decision in favour of the Revenue, however, the same is of a non-jurisdictional High Court and much prior to the two decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court i.e. the jurisdictional High Court which is binding on us. Therefore, the case

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 could not be deleted on this ground. Although there is a contrary decision in favour of the Revenue, however, the same is of a non-jurisdictional High Court and much prior to the two decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court i.e. the jurisdictional High Court which is binding on us. Therefore, the case

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

section 153A of the Act for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and also the income assessed thereafter and the penalties imposed from year to year is tabulated hereunder:- A.Y. Income as Date of Income as Income Income Penalty per Original original per return assessed concealed imposed return of return of u/s u/s (`) u/s income (`) income 148/153A 148/153A 271

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

sections": [ "143(1)", "133A", "271(1)(c)", "139(1)", "139(4)", "45(2)", "131", "143(3)" ], "issues": "Whether penalty u/s

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

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 of the Act do not apply 5 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025

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

45,31,092/-. 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee made two-fold arguments. It was argued that in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271AAB of the Act the exact clause of section 271AAB under which the penalty proceedings were initiated was not mentioned. Therefore, the penalty proceedings are not in accordance with law and are void