MRS. VASUNDHARA SHAILESH JOSHI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE HADAPSAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

JOSHI WADEWALE SHEWALWADI,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeals in the case of Mrs

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.95 & 96/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

70,00,000 Withdrawal of exemption claimed u/s.54 of the Act 32,77,070 22. We uphold the order of CIT(A) in confirming the levy of penalty on the above said two accounts. Dismissing the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, we uphold the order of CIT(A).‖ 19. The issue raised in the present appeals

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

u/s 139 of the Act. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding that explanation 5A to sec. 271(1)(c) will apply to the case when there was no seizure of any asset or document and that the appellant was not found to be owner of any asset

SANTOSH HASTIMAL GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1336/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shri Santosh Hastimal Gugale At. 4253, Chitale Road, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Dist. Ahmednagar …. Pan: Aeapg2716G Vs. The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ahmednagar Circle, Ahmednagar

section 153A of the Act for assessment years 2003-04 to 2008-09 and also the income assessed thereafter and the penalties imposed from year to year is tabulated hereunder:- A.Y. Income as Date of Income as Income Income Penalty per Original original per return assessed concealed imposed return of return of u/s u/s (`) u/s income (`) income 148/153A 148/153A 271

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

SANJAY D. KAKADE,,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

M/S KAKADE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,PUNE vs. ACIT, PUNE

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Sri D.Karunakara Rao, Am & Sri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर आयकर अपील आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं. / Ita Nos.12 To 17/Pun/2013 अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" / Assessment Years : 2003-04 To 2008-09 वष"

u/s 153A of the Act despite non- discovery of any incriminating materials during the search action on ITA Nos.100 to 102/PUN/2013 M/s. Kakade Construction Company the Assessee. From that point of view, the same additional income if AO were to make in assessment, the same needs to be deleted. Consequently, the penalty levied on the said sum of Rs.8

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. SMT. MADHURI SUNIL KOTECHA,,

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

section 271(1)(c) for which penalty proceedings are being initiated. The relevant extract of the assessment order where the Assessing Officer has recorded satisfaction is reproduced here-in-below : “2. ………….Notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 is being issued in respect of the long term capital gains claimed in the original return filed

ASHOK S. AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1227/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2007-08

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty levied by the AO be deleted. 3. The issue raised in the present appeal is against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs.2,20,617/-. 4. Briefly, in the facts of the case, the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in building / construction

RAJSHREE SINGH,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 14(5) PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(C) under which the assessee has committed default attracting penalty u/s 271(1)(C), hence the penalty may please be cancelled. 4) The lower authorities erred in levying penalty u/s 271(1)(C) Rs 362431 and it may please be deleted/cancelled. 5) The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend or drop any of grounds taken above

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Act is clearly attracted in this case. 07. From the facts of the case it has been brought on record that the assessee has converted the land inherited by the assessee form capital asset to stock in trade. The reply given by the assessee in his statement is reproduced below: "This land was inherited