AMOL VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act at ₹18,00,580/-, which has been levied by the Ld.AO for excess claim of deduction 8 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh & Ors.) u/s. 54F & 54B of the Act. At the cost of repetition, we note that assessee along with other co-owners entered into a development agreement

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

271 of the Constitution. The phraseology employed in the Finance Acts of 15 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 1940 and 1941 showed that only the rates of income tax and supertax were to be increased by a surcharge for the purpose of the Central Government. In the Finance Act of 1958 the language used showed that income tax which

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, 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, 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)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.50,95,69,294/- levied by AO u/s 271

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

61 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 dated 31.03.2016 where the Assessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by the Assessing

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

61 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 dated 31.03.2016 where the Assessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by the Assessing

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

61 of the paper book, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew the attention of the Bench to the notice issued u/s 271 r.w.s. 274 dated 31.03.2016 where the Assessing Officer has not struck of inappropriate words. Referring to page 116 of the paper book he drew the attention of the Bench to the second notice issued by the Assessing

HASMUKH HIRJI GADA,PUNE vs. PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1023/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Hasmukh Hirji Gada, Vs. Pcit (Central), Pune. 1073, Bhosale Mystiqa, Plot No.425, Flat No.203, Gokhale Road, Om Super Market, Shivaji Nagar, Pune- 411002. Pan : Adxps3533L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Neelesh Khandelwal Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel Date Of Hearing : 02.09.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.11.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.03.2024 Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Pune For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions Of Law It Be Held That The Order Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Under Section 263 For Initiating The Penalty Under Section 271Aac Of The Act Is Without Jurisdiction & Hence Is Improper, Unwarranted, Unjustified & Contrary To The Provisions Of Law & Facts Prevailing In The Case. The Order Passed U/S. 263 Be Set Aside. The Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

61,21,400/- was found from the premises of the assessee & the assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding source of cash of Rs.9,54,97,018/- out of the total cash found. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.9,54,97,018/- u/s 69A and completed the assessment u/s

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 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 : 04-06-2025 O R D E R

61,81,111/- by making various additions. 3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC gave part relief to the assessee. The Assessing Officer thereafter initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the issue of addition of Rs.11,08,482/- u/s 43B(f) of the Act which was upheld by the CIT(A) and which

INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), , PUNE vs. M/S RAVIRAJ VENTURES, PUNE

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteincome Tax Officer, Vs M/S.Raviraj Ventures, Ward-6(3), Pune. 1 To 5, Millenium Star, Dhole Patil Road, Pune – 411001. Pan: Aagfr 3176 G Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee Assessee By : Shri Rajiv Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri M.G.Jasnani, Jt.Cit Date Of Hearing : 16/02/2023 Date Of Pronouncement. : 15/05/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals), Pune-11, Dated 30.06.2022 Emanating From The Order Of The Acit, Dated 30.11.2018 Under Section 271(1)(C)Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2016-17. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Cit(A) Erred Both On Facts & In Law In Passing The Order. 2. The Cit (A) Erred In Law As Well As On Facts By Deleting The Penalty U/S 271(L)(C) Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Of Rs.1,59,55,025/- Levied By The Ao Towards Furnishing Inaccurate Particulars Of Income For Not Following Recognization Of Revenue As Per As-9, As Raviraj Ventures [R]

61,02,130/-. The AO initiated Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The AO levied Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act invoking explanation 5A . The AO levied Penalty only on one ground that the assessee offered additional income only because of search. Though the assessee had explained that assessee was following Project Completion Method

M.M. PATEL PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,SOLAPUR vs. PCIT- CENTRAL, PUNE, PUNE

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

penalty orders are passed for violations u/s 271(1)(c) and\n271B and 271D and 271(1)(b)... and so on. An exercise of missing two\nseparate orders under one common order, is besides the law and\nwholly incorrect.\nD. Mis-match of authorities (without prejudice to main challenges)\nFrom a collective perusal of sections 12AA/12AB, etc. it reveals that

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

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

61,000/- (which was reduced in computation) as profits on sale of investment, being net profit on sale of investment is hereby added to the total income of the assessee. Further, since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of its income thereof, penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) are initiated separately.\"\nIn appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC deleted

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 15. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the grounds raised by the assessee holding that the assessee has not explained the nature of expenses and to which financial year they relate to and also the circumstances as to how the same could

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

SHRIKANT CHANDRAKANT LOKHANDE,LATUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, LATUR, LATUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2696/Pun/2024 Assessment Year : 2015-16

61,89,736/- as per section 69A and taxed with respect to section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act. As the assessee concealed the particulars of income the penalty u/s271(1)(c) has been initiated separately. Penalty proceedings U/s. 271

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