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

2,07,56,798/- 2012-13 3,57,72,592/- 73,07,433/- 4. The application was admitted vide order dated 245D(1) on 01.04.2014.. The application was further allowed to be proceeded with vide order u/s 245D(2C) dated 26.05.2014. During the settlement proceedings, the Settlement Commission had made addition of Rs.39,20,00,000/-, in excess

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(C) under which the assessee has committed default attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(C), hence the penalty may please be cancelled. 4) The lower authorities erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) Rs 362431 and it may please be deleted/cancelled. 5) The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of grounds taken above

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3,, ICHALKARANJI vs. SHRI. DANWADE KUTUBUDDIN SHAHABUDIN,, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

56 dated March 19, 1971. Significantly, it postulated that Section 275 of the Income-tax Act which specified the time- limit for completion of penalty proceedings has been substituted by a new section. Under the existing section, penalty proceedings for concealment of income or defaults in furnishing the return or accounts called for by notice or failure to pay advance

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

56(2)(vib)\nof IT Act and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of\nthe IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of\nincome.\n1\nTotal income as per computation of income\n0\n2\nAdd: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above\n189641183\n3\nTotal Income assessed\n189641183\nRounded off :\n189641180\n8.\nAggrieved assessee preferred

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

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56(2)(viib) of IT Act and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56(2)(viib) of IT Act and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56(2)(viib) of IT Act and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

56(2)(viib) of IT Act and taxed accordingly. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(C) of the IT Act are also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 1 Total income as per computation of income 0 2 Add: As discussed in Para 3,4,5 above 189641183 3 Total Income assessed 189641183 Rounded off : 189641180 8. Aggrieved assessee preferred

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. HONEYWELL AUTOMATION INDIA LIMITED, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Smt Astha Chandra & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 10 DCIT Vs Honeywell Automation India Ltd ITA Nos.2180/PUN/2024 & CO 06/PUN/2025 3.2 On first two additions/disallowances the matter travelled up to Tribunal, wherein by the order dt. 19/07/2019 passed in ITA 287/PUN/2015 the Ld. Co-ordinate bench vacated the denial of tax exemption/holiday claimed u/s

YOGESH SHIVAJI SHINDE ,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Yogesh Shivaji Shinde, Vs. Ito, National Faceless H. No.377, Mhb Colony, Assessment Centre, Satpur, Nashik- 422007. Delhi. Pan : Aekps3129Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Mahesh Pagare (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21.11.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Not Justified In Levying Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of Rs. 56,350/- On The Ground That The Assessee Had Under Reported & Mis Reported His Income. In Consequence Of Misreporting Without Appreciating That The Said Levy Of Penalty Was Not Justified In Law.

56,350/- on the ground that the assessee had under reported and mis reported his income. In consequence of misreporting without appreciating that the said levy of penalty was not justified in law. 2 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that before the Commissioner of Income Tax, the assessee had duly explained that under reporting

SHIVAJI LAXMAN SAHANE,NASHIK vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, NASHIK , NASHIK

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1078/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2010-11

2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. o have concealed the particulars of your Income or particulars of such income. Furnished inaccurate You are hereby requested to appear before me at 3.00 P.M./ on 30.04.2013 and show cause why an order imposing a penalty on you should not be made under section 271 of the Income

SHREE SANT SAVTA GRAMIN BIGAR SETI SAHAKARI PATSANSTHA MARYADIT,PIMPALGAON vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NASHIK

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1597/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shree Sant Savta Gramin Bigar V Assessment Unit, Seti Sahakari Patsanstha S Income Tax Maryadit, Department, Delhi. Pimpalgaon, Niphad, Maharashtra – 422209. Pan: Aacas4098M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Sanket Joshi (Virtual) Revenue By Shri Sadananda – Jcit Date Of Hearing 10/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 11/02/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17 Dated 27.11.2024 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The I.T.Act, Dated 05.03.2024. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act as business income. Moreover, the same shall be added as income from the other sources u/s. 56 of the Act for the Act. In view of the above, I am satisfied that this is a fit case for initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

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

PRIYANVADA AMOL 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

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