JOSHI WADEWALE PRABHAT CINEMA,,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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

u/s 271(1)( c) of the Act, requires to be cancelled. 8. The ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessee that the time limit for filing revise return had not expired at the time of the search being conducted on the assessee and therefore, the provisions of explanation 5A were not applicable to the facts

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

LEEBA CONSTRUCTION,,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm

71,000/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has been levied on amount of Rs.18,47,828/- being the addition on account of bogus purchases. The perusal of assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act reveals that in the assessment order AO had recorded satisfaction for “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”. Thereafter

SAKAL PAPER LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMSSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.347 & 348/Pun/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08 & 2008-09 Sakal Papers Ltd., ………. अपीलाथ" / 595, Budhwar Peth, Appellant Pune – 411 002. Pan : Aaccs7605Q. बनाम V/S

71,353/- capital gains . (Disallowance u/s 14A) Aggrieved with the penalty order, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide consolidated order dt.15.01.2015 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)-4/Cir.6/103/13-14) 430/09-10) granted partial relief to the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2008-09. Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee and Revenue

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income SA Nos.7 to 9/PUN/2025 Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year

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.

271(1)(c) of the Act in exercising of revisional power u/s 263 of the Act. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: - 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find the issue that arises for consideration of this Court in this appeal is could the CIT in exercise of power under Section

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:

71,595/-, the quantum to be considered for levy of penalty as per Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) should follow suit and if done, the penalty u/.271(1)(c) has to reduced to Rs.3,55,82,949/-. 4.3. The claim of the appellant is squarely covered by the provisions of section 275(1A) and hence

RAHUL CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.985 & 986/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

71,009/- inter-alia by making addition of Rs.69,55,709/- on account of hawala purchases. On the aforesaid addition of hawala purchases, AO vide order dt.25.03.2015 levied penalty of Rs.23,64,244/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For A.Y. 2010-11 the details of income offered by the assessee, addition made and penalty levied are as under

RAHUL CABLES PRIVATE LIMITED,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.985 & 986/Pun/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11

71,009/- inter-alia by making addition of Rs.69,55,709/- on account of hawala purchases. On the aforesaid addition of hawala purchases, AO vide order dt.25.03.2015 levied penalty of Rs.23,64,244/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. For A.Y. 2010-11 the details of income offered by the assessee, addition made and penalty levied are as under

VIJAY TUKARAM RAUNDAL,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), PUNE

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

penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') relating to assessment years 2013-14 to 2015-16 respectively. ITA No.1637/PUN/2024 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A), Pune -11 relating to assessment year 2020-21 rejecting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 NANDED, NANDED vs. SATYAWAN ARJUNRAO SHINDE, OSMANABAD

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

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2109/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Ito, Ward-1, Nanded. Vs. Satyawan Arjunrao Shinde, Nagar Accident Hospital, Gore Complex, Samta Nagar, Osmanabad- 413501. Pan : Baeps8869J Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri B. P. Jaju Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 06.08.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A), Pune-12 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Revenue Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cit(A) Failed To Appreciate The Facts That The Assessee Has Suppressed Professional Receipts Not Shown In His Itr, Ld. Cit(A)-12, Pune Vide Letter Dtd.02/01/2023 Directed That Penalty Proceedings U/S 270A Of The Act May Be Initiated By The Ao At The Time Of Giving Effect To The Appeal Order Dtd.28/11/2022. Accordingly Ao Initiated Penalty Proceedings As Per Clause (E) Of Sub-Section 9 Of Section 270A Of The Act.

71,754/-, imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A(9)(e) of the IT Act. Ld. DR in support of his contention relied on the order passed by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. CIT order dated 11.01.2024 and requested to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and further

UNIQUE AUTOMOBILES ,,SANGLI vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 2,, SANGLI

In the result, the appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपीलसं. / Ita No.477/Pun/2018 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Unique Automobiles, The Cit(A), Kolhapur. 32, Jayraj, Near Tata Petrol Vs Pump, Vishrambag, Sangli – . 416416. Pan: Aaafu 3563 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri M.G.Jansnani - Dr Date Of Hearing 11/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 05/08/2022 आदेश/ Order Per S.S.Godara, Jm: This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2004-05 Is Directed Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-1, Kolhapur’S Order Dated 01.11.2017 Passed In Appeal No. Sli/093/10- 11, In Proceedings U/S.271B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [In Short “The Act”].

u/s 27IB of the Act for AY 2004-05. 6.0 Decision:- Before proceeding to decide the issue, I would like to reproduce section 271B and 273B of the Act and they read as under:- “271B. If any person fails 70 [***] to get his accounts audited in respect of any previous year or years relevant to an assessment year or 71

SACHIN BADRINARAYAN SOMANI,PUNE vs. ITO WARD , HINGOLI

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

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2112 & 2113/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sachin Badrinarayan Somani, Ito Ward, Hingoli Rathi Rathi & Co., 501-504, Akshay Landmarks, Oppo. Pu Vs. La Garden, Sinhagad Road, Pune-411030 Maharashtra Pan-Cncps2724N अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By: Shri Nemin Shah Department By: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk-Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing: 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 23-12-2025 आदीश /Order

71,75,281 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act levied by the Ld. Dinegitar of the fact that the specific limb under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act Le concealment of income o furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not specifically mentioned/strack off in the Notice unsder Section 274 of the Act. Ground 4: The Appellant craves leave