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

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 of additional income offered by the assessee

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

Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra) shall not be applicable to the penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, 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

Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra) shall not be applicable to the penalty

INTERVALVE POONAWALLA PVT. LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14 Intervalve Poonawalla Pvt. Ltd. Dcit, Central Circle 1(1), Fin Div. 16/B-1, Sarosh Bhavan, Pune Vs. 2Nd Floor, Dr. Ambedkar Road, Opp. Niv, Pune – 411001 Pan: Aaaci3917P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Vishnu Bhutada Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 14-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 27-05-2025 O R D E R

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. He noted that the assessee in its computation of income has disallowed meager amount of Rs.5,000/- as expenditure incurred for earning the dividend income to the tune of Rs.24,57,376/-. The Assessing Officer invoking the provisions of section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. PRABHA FARMS PRIVATE LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1748/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Dcit, Circle-1, Vs. Prabha Farms Private Aurangabad. Limited, Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent C. O. No.07/Pun/2025 (Arising Out Of Ita No.1748/Pun/2024) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Prabha Farms Private Vs. Dcit, Circle-1, Limited, Aurangabad. Akash, Paithan Road, Aurangabad- 431005. Pan : Aaccp3782D Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri N. R. Agrawal Date Of Hearing : 24.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 16.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment

57,10,580/- and simultaneously initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) IT Act. The assessee preferred first appeal against quantum addition and when it was dismissed assessee preferred second appeal before the Tribunal. The Assessing Officer imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act of 3 C.O. No.07/PUN/2025 Rs.77,24,199/-. Assessee preferred first appeal against imposition

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)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

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)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

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)/271AAB of the Act, where the income is assessed on the basis of material seized in search & seizure action carried out u/s 132 of the Act and further such addition is buoyed by the declaration on oath u/s 131 of the Act. 3. Since the facts and solitary issue delt in these bunch of appeals

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

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

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

57, Hadapsar Industrial Estate, Pune-411013. PAN :AAACT3904F . . . . . . . Respondent & Cross Objector Appearances Assessee by : Mr Siddhesh Chougule[‘Ld. AR’] Revenue by : Mr Gaurav Singh [‘Ld. DR’] Date of conclusive Hearing : 24/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 03/10/2025 ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI; The captioned appeal by the Revenue and Cross Objection thereagainst by the assessee are directed against DIN & Order ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1067969754

MEERA ANIRUDHA MIRGUNDE,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

57,230/-. The said income was accepted by the respondent-revenue vide its order dated 14-12-2019 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act treating the returned income in response to the notice u/s. 148 of the Act as concealment of income, accordingly imposed penalty

SKYLINE DEVELOPERS,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD4(50, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.709/Pun/2023 Assessment Year : 2006-07

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is separately initiated.” 6. Aggrieved assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings before ld.CIT(A) it was stated that in the year under consideration the project was not commenced and only a Joint Venture Agreement was entered. However, the assessee grossly erred in treating the stamp

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

CHANDRAKANT VITHTHAL BHOPI,RAIGAD vs. ITO WARD 1 , PANVEL

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2016-17 Chandrakant Viththal Bhopi Ito, Ward-1, Panvel At Chinchpada, Post Panvel, Tal. Vs. Panvel, Dist. Raigad – 410206 Pan: Bjdpb7610L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nikhil S Pathak & Ajinkya M Vaishampayan Department By : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 05-05-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2025 O R D E R

57(iv) gives benefit of 50% deduction on amounts mentioned in Sec 56(2)(viii). Interest on compensation or enhanced compensation is the amount mentioned in Section 56(2)(viii). Therefore, in accordance with the above, 50% of Rs.2,60,05,088 amounting to Rs.1,30,02,544/- is treated as deduction and the balance amount of Rs.1

HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR,RATNAGIRI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, RATNAGIRI WARD, RATNAGIRI

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRLE 1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR vs. HAMAJA MOHAMMED MALPEKAR, MAHARASHTRA

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

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) are hereby initiated for concealment of income to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/- (iii) Addition of Rs.6,45,95,500/- comprising of Rs.1,65,66,500/-, Rs.4,60,57,000/- and Rs.19,72,000/- on account of unexplained/ unsubstantiated sundry creditors/booking advance/unexplained liability by observing in paras 8.4, 9.2 and 10.3 as under

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

DCIT, PUNE vs. L B KUNJIR, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee

M/S. L.B. KUNJIR,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 7, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed and the three appeals filed by Revenue are dismissed

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

Penalty proceedings are initiated separately u/s 271(1)( c) of the IT Act, 1961 for concealment of income. 5.7 In respect of income of assessed u/s 68/69/69A/69B/69C/69D of the I.T Act 1961 it has now been established by law that tax on such income should be charged at rate of 30% over and above regular income of assessee