JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

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

801/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.50,28,183/- (for A.Y. 2011-12) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the orders of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.10.2015 dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved

JITENDRA PRATAPRAO SONAR,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are

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

801/- (for A.Y. 2010-11) and Rs.50,28,183/- (for A.Y. 2011-12) u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealing the particulars of income and for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Aggrieved by the orders of AO, assessee carried the matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dt.30.10.2015 dismissed the appeals of the assessee. Aggrieved

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

RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is noticed that assessee has shown business income of Rs.25,07,180/- under section 44AD of Act. As per discussion in above paras it is established that assessee was not carrying on the assessee activity and entire cash deposit is added to income. ITA No’s.2013 &2014/PUN/2019

RAVINDRA PURUSHOTTAM BIROLE(HUF),PUNE vs. ITO WARD-5(5), PUNE

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

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No’S.2013 & 2014/Pun/2019 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2010- 11 &2011-12 Ravindra Purushottam The Income Tax Officer, Birole(Huf), Vs Ward-5(5), Pune. 2055, Sadashiv Peth, Anant Residency, 1St Floor, Tilak Road, Pune – 411002. Pan: Aadhb 8563 J Appellant/ Revenue Respondent /Assessee Assessee By Shri Suhas Bora – Ar Revenue By Shri M.G.Jasnani – Dr Date Of Hearing 22/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17/10/2022 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeal Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)-4, Pune, Dated 30.10.2019For The Ay 2010-11 & A.Y.2011-12. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

271(1)(c) is initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It is noticed that assessee has shown business income of Rs.25,07,180/- under section 44AD of Act. As per discussion in above paras it is established that assessee was not carrying on the assessee activity and entire cash deposit is added to income. ITA No’s.2013 &2014/PUN/2019

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.13 To 17/Pun/2024

section 56(2)(vib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

M/S ACCORD MEDIPLUS PVT LTD,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), PUNE, PUNE

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

section 56(2)(viib) of the Act, to the parliament, special mention was made by the Honorable FM in respect of closely held companies as well as taxing share premium in excess of FMV. The FMV in instant case which is being projected is highly doubtful, in view of the facts below: (i) Assessee does not own any land

RAJENDRA L.AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (INTERNATIONAL TAXATION -I),, PUNE

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 2330/Pun/2017 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष"

Penalty, proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) are initiated separately for furnishing in accurate particulars of income.” Therefore, AO suspected the purchase and sale transaction of shares which gave rise to the short term capital loss of Rs.8.39 Crore and treated the same as income of the assessee. Assessed income is determined at Rs.28,99,67,172/-. 15. Before

SHRI MANOJ MADANLAL CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -1(1)PUNE, PUNE

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

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S. S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.91 To 96/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 To 2017-18 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Central Circle- Chhajed, 1(1), Pune. 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / It(Ss)A Nos.97 & 98/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2015-16 Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Vs. Shri Manoj Madanlal Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.725/Pun/2022 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Manoj Madanlal Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Pune. Chhajed, 601, A-8 Building, Karishma Housing Society, Near Sangam Press, Kothrud, Pune- 411029. Pan : Aalpc4991M Appellant Respondent

801 (SC), decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of M.A. Unneeri Kutty vs. CIT, 198 ITR 147 (Ker.), decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P.) Ltd. 342 ITR 169 (Delhi) confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer that the sundry creditors were bogus