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"

short term capital gain of Rs. 8,39,15,000/- has been disallowed and added to the income of the assessee. Penalty, proceedings u/s. 271

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of seven appeals relating to different assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 is the sole proprietor of the business carried on by her; whereas the assessee in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016, 102/PUN/2016

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of seven appeals relating to different assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 is the sole proprietor of the business carried on by her; whereas the assessee in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016, 102/PUN/2016

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of seven appeals relating to different assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 is the sole proprietor of the business carried on by her; whereas the assessee in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016, 102/PUN/2016

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of seven appeals relating to different assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 is the sole proprietor of the business carried on by her; whereas the assessee in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016, 102/PUN/2016

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of seven appeals relating to different assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 is the sole proprietor of the business carried on by her; whereas the assessee in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016, 102/PUN/2016

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

short ‘the Act’). 2. This bunch of seven appeals relating to different assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 3. The assessee in ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 is the sole proprietor of the business carried on by her; whereas the assessee in ITA Nos.99 & 100/PUN/2016, 102/PUN/2016

SARIKA AMIT SANAP,,AURANGABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 3,, AURANGABAD

In the result, assessee‟s appeal is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing of concealment of income.” 5. The ld. CIT(A) vide para 5 of his order made a detailed analyses of the facts involved in this case as follows: 5. I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant. The brief facts of the case ~ that the appellant an individual

RAMCHANDRAUDAYSINGHJADHAVRAO,PUNE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-3, PUNE

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

short \"the Act\"). In this case a\nsurvey action u/sec.133A of the Act was conducted on 14.09.2016 at his business\npremises. The case of the assessee was selected for compulsory scrutiny. During\nthe course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer referred to the various\nquestions put to the assessee especially question no.11 and 13, details of which are\nas under

SHIVKUMAR RADHESHYAM SHARMA,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.749/Pun/2016 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12

Capital Gain derived from the sale of this property, to tax. Thus, the assessee has furnished the inaccurate particulars of his income for the A.Y.2011-12. Hence, the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) will be initiated separately. 9. The Short Term

DCIT CIRCLE-7, PUNE vs. THAKUR HASARAM MULCHANDANI, PUNE

Appeal is dismissed in above terms

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.55/Pun/2020 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dcit, Circle-7, Pune. Vs. Thakur Hasaram Mulchandani, Flat No.1, Building No.1, Sukhasagar Terrace, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Opp. Gpo, Pune- 411001. Pan : Aaxpm9871G Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Date Of Hearing : 13.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.06.2022 आदेश / Order Per S. S. Godara, Jm: This Revenue’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2015-16 Arises Against The Cit(A)-5, Pune’S Order Dated 15.10.2019 Passed In Case No. Pn/Cit(A)-5/Dcit, Cir. 7, Pune/10020/2018-19 Involving Proceedings U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short The Act. Heard Both The Parties. Case Files Perused. 2. The Revenue’S Sole Substantive Grievance Raised Herein Challenges Correctness Of The Cit(A)’S Action Reversing The Penalty

term capital gains. This claim of excess expense in this regard, in my opinion, when surrendered by the appellant by realizing such wrong claim, initially made due to inadvertence, cannot be held as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, as has been held by the AO while levied penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I further find that

MANOJ S. GUGALE,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.1327/Pun/2016 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Manoj S. Gugale 652, Shantisadan, Topkhana, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Ahmednagar …. Pan: Adzpg9595N Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 3, Ahmednagar

u/s 271(1)(c) had erred in not appreciating the following important facts: a) The appellant had offered additional income, which constitutes a voluntary and bonafide act. b) In compliance of the disclosure, the appellant had filed the revised statement incorporating the additional income during the course of assessment proceedings also claimed the TDS voluntarily, which was remained

AMOL 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

gain was calculated on that date on account of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. There is no dispute at the end of the Ld.AO that assessee’s share of LTCG is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- which has been worked out on the basis of the figures of sale consideration available on the date of entering into

ROHINI MARUTI 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

gain was calculated on that date on account of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. There is no dispute at the end of the Ld.AO that assessee’s share of LTCG is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- which has been worked out on the basis of the figures of sale consideration available on the date of entering into

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

gain was calculated on that date on account of conversion of capital asset into stock-in-trade. There is no dispute at the end of the Ld.AO that assessee’s share of LTCG is ₹ 1,64,17,638/- which has been worked out on the basis of the figures of sale consideration available on the date of entering into

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

short ‘the Act’). 2. Both the appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA No.1368/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2005-06. 3. The assessee

SUNIL DAMODHAR BODKE,,NASHIK vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 & 2007-08 Late Shri Sunil Damodhar Bodke, Through L/H Smt. Shalini Sunil Bodke, Damodhar Niwas, Sai Nagar, अऩीऱाथी/Appellant Pune Road, Nashik – 422011 …. Pan: Abcpb5545L Vs. The Income Tax Officer, …. प्रत्यथी / Respondent Ward 1 (1), Nashik

short ‘the Act’). 2. Both the appeals relating to the same assessee on similar issue were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. However, in order to adjudicate the issues, reference is being made to the facts in ITA No.1368/PUN/2015, relating to assessment year 2005-06. 3. The assessee

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

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

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act are initiated. [Rs.2,06,68,835/-]” 6. In appeal, the CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. While doing so, he relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Calcutta High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Swati Bajaj reported in 446 ITR 56 (Calcutta). So far as the arguments made