VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1, PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS deductions. and the disallowance arose only because the authorities did not accept the evidence as sufficient. It has further been contended that the disallowance relating to commission expenses is tax neutral

VEENA INDUSTRIES PVT LTD,PUNE vs. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE2(1), PUNE

In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied. The appellant has also argued that the claim of commission payment was made on the basis of agreements and TDS deductions. and the disallowance arose only because the authorities did not accept the evidence as sufficient. It has further been contended that the disallowance relating to commission expenses is tax neutral

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

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO.” 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

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

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO.” 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

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

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO.” 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

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

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

801B(10) of the Act. We, therefore, overturn the impugned order and restore the order of the AO." 6. After the order of the Tribunal the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,38,96,534/- being penalty

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