DINAR UMESHKUMAR MORE,MALEGAON vs. ITO WARD 1, MALEGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of such addition made on estimation basis was not justified in law. 7] The appellant craves leave to add/alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.” 3. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee placing reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia

SHIVANAND MAHADEOAPPA OPLE,,BEED vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1,, BEED

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.950/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople, The Income Tax Officer, Mangalnath Colony, Gajanan Vs Ward-1, Beed. Krupa Niwas, Beed Road, Malalgaon – 431131. Pan: Aahpo 1059 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 12/10/2022 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(Appeals)-2, Aurangabad, Dated 05.04.2019 For The A.Y. 2012-13 Arising Out Of The Order U/S 271(1)(C) Dated 5/12/2017. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. On The Facts Of The Case & In Law, It May Please Be Held That The Penalty Levied U/S.271(1)(C) Is Null & Void Since The Initiation Of Penalty Proceedings & Notice U/S.274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Both Are Without Proper Application Of Mind. - Rs.1,56,101/- 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming Penalty On The Capital Gain Amount Of Rs.7,80,508/- Arose Due To Difference Between Indexed Cost Of Acquisition As On 01/04/1981 Allowed By The Ao In Assessment As Compared To That Finalized In Appeal By Cit(A) On Basis Of Valuation Done By Dvo. The Said Penalty May Please Be Deleted. Shivanand Mahadeoappa Ople [A]

271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2012-13 vide order dated 5/12/2017 of Rs.4,66,101/-. Aggrieved, by the Penalty Order the Assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) partly upheld the Penalty Order. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. No one had appeared

ARUN KESHAVRAO NARWADE (HUF),,AURANGABAD vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), AURANGABAD

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.185/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf, The Income Tax Officer, Plot No.12, Rajnagar, Station V Ward-3(1), Aurangabad. Road, Aurangabad – 431005. S Pan: Aahha 8135 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri M.K.Kulkarani – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 23/12/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2022 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(Appeals), Aurangabad-2 Dated 18.03.2019 Emanating From Penalty Order Of Assessing Officer Dated 30.03.2017 Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The I.T.Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2005-06. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1) On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Lawthe Penalty Under Section 271(L)(C) Levied Of Rs. 5,66,058/- By The A.O. & Confirmed By Ld. Cit(A) In His Appeal Order Dt. 18-03- 2019 Is Not Justified In View Of Latest Hon'Ble Supreme Court Judgment Reported As Pr. Cit V. Golden Peace Hotels & Resorts (P.) Ltd [2021] 124 Taxmann.Com 249 (Sc) Dt. 20-22-2020. The Penalty Levied Being Illegal & Without Jurisdiction Be Quashed. Arun Keshavrao Narwade –Huf [A]

u/s 50C of the Act is thus at Rs. 28,59,402/-. It is now settled law the valuation adopted under S. 50C of the Act is not to be invoked for valuation to computation of long term capital gain. It be held accordingly quashing the penalty levied. 2 Arun Keshavrao Narwade –HUF [A] 6) On the facts

SMT. TARADEVI RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2304/Pun/2014 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year : 2009-10

section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and hence, penalty order is bad in law and therefore, the same may be annulled. 4. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the I T Act, even though A.O failed to record

VIJAY BALBHIM PISE,SOLAPUR vs. ITO WARD 1(2), SOLAPUR, SOLAPUR

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.195/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Vijay Balbhim Pise, Vs Ito Ward 1(2), 110, Railway Lines, Solapur- Solapur 413001 Maharashtra Pan-Ajgpp4660A Appellant Respondent

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for concealment of income which was based on the additions made on the basis of estimation of fair market value of the land based on deeming fiction as provided in Section 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961. The said penalty not be initiated. 6. The appellant craves leave to add to, alter

ABDULWARIS CHANDSAB SHAIKH,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: "याियक सद"य के सम" Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2340/Pun/2016 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

section 50C of the Act determined the taxable income of the assessee at Rs.16,37,797/-. AO levied penalty of Rs.2,97,775/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing in accurate particulars of income. The core issue in this appeal is that a sum of Rs.16,00,000/- was credited in the capital account of the assessee being

SHITAL PRAVIN JAIKRISHNIA,NASHIK vs. ITO, WARD-1(3), NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.681/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shital Pravin Jaikrishnia, The Income Tax Officer, 37 38 39 40, Aditya Avenue, V Ward-1(3), Nashik. Tidke Colony, S Nashik – 422002. Pan: Adipj1793J Appellant/Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Kishor B Phadke – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 31/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 04/06/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 20.02.2024 Emanating From The Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 13.05.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Learned Cit(A)-Nfac Erred In Law In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Ita, 1961 To Rs 10,13,112 (Being 100% Of Tax Evaded) As Against The Penalty Of Rs. 20,64,224 (Being 200% Of Tax Evaded For Concealment Of Income). The Learned I-T Authorities Ought To Have Appreciated That There Is No Any Concealment Of Income.

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) is unsustainable. Submission of LD.DR : 3. Ld.DR accepted that after the order of CIT(A) income of the assessee has been reduced to loss. 2 Finding and Analysis: 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. It is mentioned in the assessment order that AO received information that assessee along with Shri

SHIVKUMAR RADHESHYAM SHARMA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.749/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) will be initiated separately. 9. The Short Term Capital Gain on the sale of flat by the assessee is computed as under : Cost of Acquisition of the Flat : Rs.23,16,000/- Add: Stamp Duty Rs.1,15,800/- Registration fee Rs. 23,580/- 4 A.Y.2011-12 Other Expenses Rs. 4,620/- Net Cost of the Plot

POPATLAL MOHANLAL CHORDIA,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed on technicalities

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 781/Pun/2016 िनधा$रण वष$ / Assessment Year : 2008-09

50C 15,97,820 2 Capital gains not offered for taxation 27,20,215/- 3 Capital gains not offered for taxation 13,63,533 Total 56,63,568 The CIT(A) after elaborately discussing the issue of capital gains and considering various judgmental laws partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The penalty levied in respect of addition of Rs.13

TETRA PAK INDIA PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DY.CIT, CIR.7, PUNE, PUNE

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.111/Pun/2011 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07 Tetra Pak India Private Ltd., Mayfair Towers, Wakdewadi, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Aaact3467B बनाम / V/S. Dcit, Circle-7, ……""यथ" / Respondent Pune. Assessee By : Shri Nikhil Pathak Revenue By : Shri S. B. Prasad सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2019 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 27.08.2019 आदेश / Order Per D. Karunakara Rao, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of Assessing Officer/Tpo/Drp For The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee Are As Under :- “Based On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Tetra Pak India Private Limited (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Appellant’) Respectfully Craves Leave To Prefer An Appeal Under Section 253(1)(D) Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Act’), Against The Order Dated 25 November 2010 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle 7 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Assessing Officer’) Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Act In Pursuance Of The Directions Dated 20 September 2010 Issued By The Honorable Dispute Resolution Panel (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Honorable Drp’), On The Following Grounds: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Honorable Drp & Consequentially The Learned Ao Have: I Grounds Of Objections In Respect Of Transfer Pricing Adjustment

50C of the Act. 16. Disallowance of expenditure of Rs.10,35,850/- on reduction of share capital: Erred in disallowing the expenditure of Rs.10,35,850/- on reduction of share capital by treating the same as capital expenditure. III. Other grounds of appeal 17. Disallowance of incremental provision for leave encashment of Rs.31,99,327/-: The assessing officer has erred

SHIVAJI VISHNU CHAVAN,PUNE vs. UITO WARD-5(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1143/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2011-12 Shivaji Vishnu Chavan, V The Income Tax Officer, Gomukh, 92/2, Gangtok, S Ward-5(4), Pune. Narsapur, Pune – 411004. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaspc1061B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Pramod S Shingte – Ar Revenue By Shri Arvind Renge – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 31/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Shivaji Vishnu Chavan In Form No.36 Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Act, Dated 31.05.2024 For The A.Y.2011-12 Emanating From Assessment Order U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2011-12, Dated 12.12.2018. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961. Hence, assessee’s share of Rs.5,42,000 is treated as his income of the year under the head Income from capital gain and unexplained money u/s. 68 of the Act and brought to tax . Penalty proceedings u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271

BHARAT EKNATH KANPILE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.321 & 322/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. A.Y. : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Bharat Eknath Kanpile, 2. It emerges at the outset that both these penalties in issue before us amounting to Rs.4,78,800/- and Rs.21,25,803/-; assessment year-wise, respectively hardly require

BHARAT EKNATH KANPILE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 8,, PUNE

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.321 & 322/Pun/2018 धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2011-12

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short the Act. Heard both the parties. Case files perused. A.Y. : 2009-10 & 2011-12 Bharat Eknath Kanpile, 2. It emerges at the outset that both these penalties in issue before us amounting to Rs.4,78,800/- and Rs.21,25,803/-; assessment year-wise, respectively hardly require

RAJKUMAR RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, addition confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6] The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee reported earning

SIDHARTH RATANLAL BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, addition confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6] The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee reported earning

SUSHILKUMAR KASTURCHAND BAFNA,,JALGAON vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

section 50C of the Act. Therefore, addition confirmed by the CIT(A) may please be deleted. 6] The Appellate craves the permission to add, amend, modify, alter, revise, substitute, delete any or all grounds of the appeal, if deemed necessary at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 4. Briefly stated the relevant facts include that the assessee reported earning

L/H OF LATE SHRI TAJUDDIN M. SOMJEE, MRS. SHAHNAZ ALI MOHAMMAD SOMJEE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

50C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and denied the claim for exemption under the provisions of section 54EC of the Act. Against that order, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A), who had confirmed the action of AO and even on further appeal before the Tribunal, the orders of the lower authorities