ROHINI MARUTI 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

63,80,243/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s. 274 of the Act and vide penalty order dated 18/05/2018, Ld.AO levied penalty of ₹18,00,580/- 7. Aggrieved with the order of penalty, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee 6 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh

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

63,80,243/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s. 274 of the Act and vide penalty order dated 18/05/2018, Ld.AO levied penalty of ₹18,00,580/- 7. Aggrieved with the order of penalty, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee 6 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh

TULSABAI 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

63,80,243/-. Subsequently, penalty proceedings were initiated by issuing notice u/s. 274 of the Act and vide penalty order dated 18/05/2018, Ld.AO levied penalty of ₹18,00,580/- 7. Aggrieved with the order of penalty, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), but failed to succeed. Now, the assessee 6 ITA.Nos.1837-1839/PUN./2025 (Amol Vasant Deshmukh

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

penalty levied u/s 270A of the Act and allow the appeal of the assessee‖. 12 ITA No.1260/PUN/2025, AY 2020-21 7. Since, in the instant case, the assessee has made a bonafide claim which was approved by various High Courts in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. Vs. JCIT reported in [2020] 117 taxman.com 96 (Bombay) and Chambal Fertilisers & Chemicals

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the provisions of section 271AAB(1A) have also got two parts. As per the said sub-section, the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. We find the provisions of section 271AAB(1A) have also got two parts. As per the said sub-section, the penalty is either leviable under clause (a) or (b). Under clause (a) the penalty is leviable @ 30% of the undisclosed income and under clause (b) the penalty is leviable @ 60% of the undisclosed income

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

63,510/- after claiming deductions under Chapter VI-A. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act on 20.09.2021 by accepting the income returned in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order dated 08.01.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of Rs.36,000/- u/s 271

MS IMSOFER MANUFACTURING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW KNOWN AS FERRERO INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED),PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)– PUNE AND NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI, PUNE AND NFAC (DELHI)

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1316/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 M/S. Imsofer Manufacturing Vs. Dcit, Circle-1(1), Pune. India Private Limited (Now Known As Ferrero India Private Limited), World Trade Center, 8Th Floor, Tower-3, Kharadi- 411014. Pan : Aabci6450N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Siddhesh Chaugule & Nagma Gupta Revenue By Shri Amol Khairnar : Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 16.04.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “General Grounds: 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Hon. Cit(A) Has Erred In Passing Order Under Section 250 Of The Act I.E. Levying Penalty Of Inr 3,55,82,949/-. Legal Grounds:

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex parte order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

SANTOSH ASHOKRAO BARHANPURKAR,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), NASHIK

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

63,510/- after claiming deductions under\nChapter VI-A. The assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s.144B\nof the IT Act on 20.09.2021 by accepting the income returned in\nresponse to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. Subsequently, vide order\ndated 08.01.2022 the Assessing Officer imposed penalty of\nRs.36,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for concealing

AADHUNIK INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE LIMITED,JALGAON vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JALGAON

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2012-13

Penalty proceedings are separately initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) / NFAC challenging the validity of re-assessment proceedings as well as the addition on merits. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. LB 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

63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess stock of Rs.3,11,76,525/- represents assessee‟s unexplained investment

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

63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess stock of Rs.3,11,76,525/- represents assessee‟s unexplained investment

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

63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess stock of Rs.3,11,76,525/- represents assessee‟s unexplained investment

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

63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess stock of Rs.3,11,76,525/- represents assessee‟s unexplained investment

DCIT CIRCLE 7, BODHI TOWER SALISBURY PARK 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

63,525) impounded during the survey of Rs.3,11.76,525/-. This fact has been accepted by the Partner of the firm in the statement. Actual Closing stock is more than the closing stock as per books and hence provisions of section 69B are dearly applicable in this case. Excess stock of Rs.3,11,76,525/- represents assessee‟s unexplained investment

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

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

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

63,26,5601 by making additions of Rs.63,26,560/- without giving adequate opportunity for hearing. 6.5.1. On perusal of the order appealed against, it is observed that as per information gathered by the A.O the appellant had received contractual receipts of Rs. 7.90.82.498/-during the F.Y.2013-14, relevant to the A.Y.2014- 15. But, the appellant is not fled the Return

VINEET TIWARI,BENGALURU vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual

VINEET TIWARI,BANGALORE vs. CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty of Rs.20,58,288/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual