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

Section 153A did not offer his global income, therefore, the Assessing Officer was fully justified in levying the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 20. So far as the argument regarding debatable issue is concerned, he submitted that the issue is not at all debatable in view of the decision of the Settlement Commission holding the assessee

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,SHIROL vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoresl.

58 (Delhi). (v) CIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023] 456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh) (vi) CIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR 722 (Bombay). (vii) CIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd., [2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed by the Revenue against the judgement passed by Hon’ble High Court of Punjab

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

58,838/- on account of Education Cess which is not allowable expenditure wholly and exclusively for the purposes of business. Further, the AO has placed reliance of amendment made in Finance Act 2022 where it is provided that corporate cannot claim deduction for taxes paid as cess u/s 37(1) of the Act. Such amendment was retrospective in nature

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.

58,000/-. On an enquiry the assessee replied that the excess amount of Rs.43,51,400/- is repayable to the partners and it is not the part of income. The Assessing Officer asked to produce the return of partnership firm wherein the excess amount has been shown as receivable by the firm. The assessee replied that there is no partnership

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

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

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)

58,000/- for the assessment year under consideration and the same was offered in its return of income. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts by deleting the penalty u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 without appreciating the fact that in the show cause

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

58\n(Delhi).\n(v)\nCIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023]\n456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh)\n(vi)\nCIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR\n722 (Bombay).\n(vii)\nCIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.,\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed\nby the Revenue against the judgement passed

SHRI DATTA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD,KOLHAPUR vs. DCIT, CIR-1, KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA\nNo

58\n(Delhi).\n(v)\nCIT vs. S. Kumar Tyres Manufacturing Co. Ltd., [2023]\n456 ITR 637 (Madhya Pradesh)\n(vi)\nCIT vs. Nayan Builders & Developers, [2014] 368 ITR\n722 (Bombay).\n(vii)\nCIT vs. Gurdaspur Cooperative Sugar Mills (P.) Ltd.,\n[2024] 159 taxmann.com 7 (SC) (wherein the SLP filed\nby the Revenue against the judgement passed

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

section 80IB(10) of the Act. He submitted that the assessee\nwas taking a chance and all these things would not have come to notice had there\nbeen no survey u/s 133A. Therefore, it cannot be said that the assessee has made\nfull and true disclosure. He accordingly submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)\nbeing in accordance

RAJENDRA CHANDRAKANT CHINCHNIKAR,PUNE vs. CIT(A)-11, PUNE

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

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2019-20 Rajendra Chandrakant Chinchnikar Acit, Central Circle, 2165, B Ward, Koshti Galli, Vs. Kolhapur Mangalwar Peth, Pune – 416012 Pan: Acppc3559D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tanzil Padvekar Department By : Shri Milind Debaje, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 25-08-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-09-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

271(1)(c) cannot be automatically imposed. 12. Referring to the decision of the Chennai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of KAG India (P.) Ltd. vs. PCIT (2025) 170 taxmann.com 45 (Chennai-Trib.), he submitted that unless a person is considered to have under-reported his income as contemplated by sub-section (2) of section 270A, he cannot

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SMT ANJALI PRAPHULL SHIVALE,PUNE vs. ACIT CIRCLE2(3), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience

SHRI PRAPHULL KALURAM SHIVALE,PUNE vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty of Rs.58,88,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for assessment year 2016- 17. ITA No.1583//PUN/2024 filed by the wife of assessee Smt. Anjali Prafulla Shivale is directed against the order dated 10.04.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune – 12 for assessment year 2018-19. For the sake of convenience