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

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.

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.13,44,580/-. 4. In first appeal, after considering the reply of the assessee

DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. TAPADIYA CONSTRUCTIONS LTD, AURANGABAD.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: MS.ASHTA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Act, which had various Limbs, whereas Section 271AAB(1A) do not have any such. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) erred. Ld.DR relied on the decision of Hon’ble High Court in PCIT Vs. Sandeep Chandak [2018] 405 ITR 648 (All) dated 27.11.2017 which has been confirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 23.04.2018. Ld.DR

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) of the Act, and to buttress the said argument reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into

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) of the Act, and to buttress the said argument reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into

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) of the Act, and to buttress the said argument reliance was also placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘K P Madhusudhanan Vs CIT’ reported at 251 ITR 99 (SC) and ‘UOI Vs Dharmendra Textiles Processor’ reported in 306 ITR 227 (SC). The Ld. DR Mr Desai further pressing into

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

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16 wherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed. The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16 wherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed. The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16 wherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed. The assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

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)

u/s 271(l)(a) of the Act, for delay in filing of return. Though the assessee filed certain explanation, the AO overlooked it. The AO presumed that the assessee had no reason to offer for the delay, and therefore he was satisfied that the assessee had without any reasonable cause failed to file the return in time

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

Penalty U/s 271(1)(c) of Rs.3,37,51,947/- is upheld by CIT(A) based on the\ndecision of Hon'ble ITAT Pune in the assessee's own quantum case for AY 2015-16\nwherein the claim of deduction U/s 80IB(10) was not allowed.\nThe assessee during the appellate proceedings before the Hon'ble ITAT from

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

51,272/- was reduced to Rs.10,96,71,595/-, the quantum to be considered for levy of penalty as per Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) should follow suit and if done, the penalty u/.271(1)(c) has to reduced to Rs.3,55,82,949/-. 4.3. The claim of the appellant is squarely covered by the provisions of section

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 NANDED, NANDED vs. SATYAWAN ARJUNRAO SHINDE, OSMANABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

51,810/- as against the income returned by the assessee at Rs.17,86,810/-. The above assessed income includes addition of Rs.1,11,00,000/- u/s 69A subject to special rate of tax u/s 115BEE and also other additions amounting in all to Rs.64,65,000/-. The Assessing Officer in the above assessment order also initiated penalty u/s 274 r.w.s

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

271(1)(c) of the Act by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‚Dilip N Shroff Vs JCIT‛ reported in 291 ITR 519 (SC) and ‚Ashok Pai Vs CIT‛ reported at 292 ITR 11(SC), further by Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in plethora judgements including ‚CIT Vs Samson Pericherry‛, ‚PCIT Vs Goa Dorado‛ and ‚PCIT Vs New Era Sova Mine

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

51,480/- is added to the total income of the assessee company for A.Y. 2020-21. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for underreporting in consequence of mis-reporting of income.” 7.1. Similarly, we find the notice issued u/sec.274 r.w.s.270A dated 30.09.20222, copy of which, is placed at page-12 of the paper

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

51,480/- is added to the total income of the assessee company for A.Y. 2020-21. Penalty proceedings u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is initiated separately for underreporting in consequence of mis-reporting of income.” 7.1. Similarly, we find the notice issued u/sec.274 r.w.s.270A dated 30.09.20222, copy of which, is placed at page-12 of the paper

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever

AMOL PRAMOD MAHAJAN,JALGAON vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK, NASHIK

In the result, all the appeals filed by the respective assessees are allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

271 (1) (c)/270A are initiated, proper explanation below that section shall be invoked. In case penalties initiated u/s 271AAA/271 AAB, the same should be invoked under the respective issue itself as well as at the bottom of the order. (vii) The computation interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C will be a part of the assessment order itself. (viii) Wherever