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

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

SHRI MAHALAXMI CO-OP. BANK LTD.,,KOLHAPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.2149/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mahalaxmi Co-Operative Bank Ltd., 167-B, Mangalwar Peth, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Kolhapur - 416012 …. Pan: Aaats3679R Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Circle-1, Kolhapur

u/s 36(1)(viia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the disallowance of such claim is highly debatable issue and therefore no penalty is leviable. 2 Shri Mahalaxmi Co-operative Bank Ltd. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Briefly, in the facts

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

SURJITSINGH SEVAKSINGH BAGGA,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(1),, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am

58,282/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now before us. 5. Before us, Ld.A.R. reiterated the submissions made before AO and Ld.CIT(A) and further submitted that assessee has not furnished any inaccurate particulars which is incorrect

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), NASHIK vs. GANESH SAHAKARI BANK LTD., NASHIK

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara, Jm & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.168/Pun/2020 ननधधारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 .......अपऩलधथी /Appellant Ito, Ward -1(1), Nashik

section 271(1)(c) penalty of Rs. 58,67,910/-, we note at the outset that lower appellate discussion holding the latter’s show cause notice to this effect dated 22.03.2016 as bad in law, reads as under. “5.1 Legal Issue (under which limb penalty was imposed) :- On perusal of the assessment order, the AO has initiated penalty proceedings u/s

MOHAN N. SHETTY,,RAIGAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PANVEL CIRCLE,, PANVEL

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed and Stay Application is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.679/Pun/2018 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14

u/s 273B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The assessee is aggrieved by the order levying penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in the absence of recording of satisfaction as to which limb of said section has not been satisfied by the assessee and further also in holding the assessee to be liable to levy