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

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

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

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

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

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

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

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

10. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in view of above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to recalculate the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the basis of quantum addition of Rs.1,43,52,728/- only. Accordingly

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