TULSABAI VASANT DESHMUKH,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), PUNE

In the result, all the appeals (ITA Nos

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamore

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that assessee has rectified the mistake immediately on the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act. He also submitted that assessee could have easily revised the return because the due date of filing revised return was 31/03/2017 and the notice u/s

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- SANGLI , SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. 5. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraph of the penalty order. Assessing Officer has held that Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by means of claiming deduction u/sec.80P

PRAKASHBAPU PATIL GRAMIN BIGAR SHETI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA LTD,SANGLI vs. ACIT CIRCLE SANGLI, SANGLI

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1325& 1328/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15 & 2015-16 Prakashbapu Patil Gramin V The Acit, Bigar Sheti Sahakari Pat S Circle-Sangli. Sanstha Ltd., Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd., Savali Miraj, Sangli – 416410. Maharashtra. Pan: Aaaap1616N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Smt. Deepa Khare – Ar Revenue By Shri Rajesh Gawali – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/12/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Against The Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] For Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16; Dated 05.04.2024 & 10.04.2024 Respectively; Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. Since The Issue Involved Is Common

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 4.2 Aggrieved by the penalty order, assessee filed an appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Ld.CIT(A) upheld the penalty order. 5. We have already reproduced the relevant paragraph of the penalty order. Assessing Officer has held that Assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income by means of claiming deduction u/sec.80P

M/S GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CC.1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra) shall not be applicable to the penalty

ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. GIRIRAJ ENTERPRISES, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2021-22

Section 271AAB(1A) simply provides for levy of penalty on undisclosed income of the specified previous year depending upon the situation as prescribed in clause (a) and (b) of sec. 271AAB(1A) of the Act. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the Hon. Bombay High Court in the case of Farhan Sheikh (supra) shall not be applicable to the penalty

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOLHPAUR vs. RBL BANK LTD, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 02.02.2024 for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Id.CIT(A) erred in deleting the penalty of Rs.50,95,69,294/- levied by AO u/s 271

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:

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon. CIT(A) has erred in passing an ex parte order without granting adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant thereby violating the principles of natural justice. 8. On the facts and circumstances of the case

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1),NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

90,810/- consequent to higher claim of deduction u/c VI-A of ₹3,59,844/- as against original claim of deductions made in original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4.3 A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on a third party wherein certain information about the appellant was gathered which was shared

KISHOR DIGAMBAR PATIL,NASHIK vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1), NASHIK, NASHIK

Appeals are allowed in above terms

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 54 & 55/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 & 2018-19 Kishor Digambar Patil, 03, Saras Apartment, Patil Lane 04, College Rd., Nashik – 422005 Pan: Aarpp2052J . . . . . . . अपऩलधर्थी / Appellant

90,810/- consequent to higher claim of deduction u/c VI-A of ₹3,59,844/- as against original claim of deductions made in original return filed u/s 139(1) of the Act. 4.3 A survey action u/s 133A of the Act was carried out on a third party wherein certain information about the appellant was gathered which was shared

THE JALGAON DISTRICT CENTRAL CO OP BANK LTD,JALGAON vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1 JALGAON, JALGAON

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y.2012-13 in the case of assessee. The relevant Paragraph 7 of the penalty order is reproduced here as under : “7. The quantum of minimum and maximum penalty in the case of the assessee is worked out as under : Particulars Amount.(Rs.) 1) Concealed income as per order 47,59,955 u/s.143

S K BHANSALI & ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2006-07

90,000/- (@ Rs.750/sq ft) and received the said consideration partly in cash amounting to Rs.17,76,200/- (@ Rs.535/sq ft) and partly by cheque amounting to Rs.7,13,800/- (@ Rs.215/sq ft.) As regards the tax treatment accorded to this transaction, it may please be noted that YBT has duly disclosed the Long Term Capital Gain arising out of this transaction

PARANJAPE PENDSE ASSOCIATES,PUNE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri S.S. Godaraassessment Year : 2014-15

90,22,532/-, where he made the following additions: a) Rs.25,49,468/- being adhoc disallowance of 20% of total expenses debited at Rs.1,27,47,339/- b) Rs.58,98,675/- being disallowance of 20% of unsecured loans of Rs.2,94,93,272/- c) Rs.83,20,000/- being addition on account of sale of immovable property - 4. In appeal

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

CTR MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

90,631.00 as interest under section 234B of the Act; Initiation of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 11. erred in initiating the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(C) of the Act.” 3. There is a delay in filing the appeal. The application for condonation of delay has been filed along with an affidavit sworn

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 7 PUNE, PUNE vs. KOLTE PATIL INTEGRATED TOWNSHIPS LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Penalty proceeding under section 271[1][c] of the Income Tax Act 1961\nfor concealment of income is initiated separately.\nDisallowance of interest u/s 36 of the I.T. Act of Rs.15,11,87,548/-" 6.\nBefore the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC the assessee apart from challenging the\naddition on merit challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment

M/S PERSISTENT SYSTEMS LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, PUNE

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is Partly Allowed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकरअपीलसं. / Ita No.692/Pun/2022 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 M/S.Persistent Systems Assessment Unit, Income Limited, V Tax Department. “Bhageerath” 402, Senapati S Bapat Road, Pune – 411016. Pan: Aabcp 1209 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Dhanesh Bafna& Shriaditya Vaidya– Ar’S Revenue By Shri Suhas Kulkarni - Irs Addl Commissioner Of Income Tax Date Of Hearing 26/09/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 02/11/2023 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Assessment Order, Dated 20.07.2022 Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Read With Section 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2018-19. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “Ground 1: Order Is Invalid / Non Est  On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Assessment Unit (‘Au’) Has Erred In Passing The Draft Assessment M/S.Persistent Systems Limited [A]

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s 270A of the Act.” 6 M/s.Persistent Systems Limited [A] Brief facts of the case : 2. The Assessee is a Public Limited Company which is listed on Bombay Stock exchange and National Stock Exchange. It is engaged in the business of Software development, and related services. It operates from various locations in India and also

SUMIT LALCHAND PAHUJA,KOLHAPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD1(5), KOLHAPUR, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.273/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Sumit Lalchand Pahuja, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), House No.2719, Gandhinagar, Kolhapur. Tal. Karveer, Dist. Kolhapur- 416119. Pan : Bohpp0806D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak Date Of Hearing : 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.09.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.12.2023 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When The Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Bad In Law. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Merit In Confirming Additions Of Rs.1,03,90,206/- When Notice Issued U/S 148 Was Based On Erroneous Facts & Without Proper Application Of Mind By Assessing Officer As The Assessee Did Not Held Any Account With M/S Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Cooperative Credit Society Ltd.

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act on the said unexplained income of Rs.1,03,90,206/-. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC & since the assessee remained absent the appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution vide impugned order dated 28.12.2023. 5. Being aggrieved with

SACHIN NAGRAJ CHHAJED,PUNE vs. ITO, PUNE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

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

section 44AD of the IT Act by estimating the net profit at Rs.63,26,560/- (8% of gross receipt of Rs.7,90,82,498/-) and added the same to the total income of the appellant. Further, in para 7 of the order appealed against the details of numerous opportunities provided through statutory notices. 6.5.2. During the appellate proceeding, five notices