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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty on such income which was detected during the course of search and seizure operation, which in turn has been offered by the assessee in return of income filed ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 19 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors pursuant to notice issued under

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty on such income which was detected during the course of search and seizure operation, which in turn has been offered by the assessee in return of income filed ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 19 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors pursuant to notice issued under

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty on such income which was detected during the course of search and seizure operation, which in turn has been offered by the assessee in return of income filed ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 19 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors pursuant to notice issued under

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

5A to section 271(1)(c) of the Act and the assessee is exigible to levy of penalty on such income which was detected during the course of search and seizure operation, which in turn has been offered by the assessee in return of income filed ITA Nos.95 & 96/PUN/2016 & Ors. 19 Vasundhara S Joshi & Ors pursuant to notice issued under

KUMAR P. GERA,,PUNE vs. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ,, PUNE

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S.S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita No.704/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2008-2009 Shri Kumar P Gera 200, Gera Plaza, Boat Club Rd., Pune. . . . . . . . अऩीऱाथी / Appellant Pan : Aaypg8748B बिधम / V/S. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . प्रत्यथी / Respondent Central, Pune - 411037 द्वारा / Appearances Assessee By : Shri S. K. Tyagi & R. S. Soniminde Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 06/10/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Present Appeal For The Assessment Year [For Short “Ay”] 2008-09 Is Assailed Against The Revisionary Order Of Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Pune [For Short “Pcit”] Dt. 20/03/2018 Passed U/S 263 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 [For Short “The Act”] Which Stemmed Out Of Order Dropping Penalty [For Short “Po”] Dt. 29/04/2016 Passed By The Dcit, Central Circle-1(3), Pune [For Short “Ao”] U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

5A to section 271(1) of the Act. 3. The ld. Pr. CIT erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO had dropped the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the AY 2008-09 vide his order dt. 29.4.2016 after taking into consideration the relevant factual and legal position as explained by the appellant, vide

ANANT MATE,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, all the appeals of assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm & Shri Anil Chaturvedi, Am आयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos.1674 To 1678/Pun/2015 यििाारण वषा / Assessment Years : 2005-06 To 2008-09 & 2010-11

reassessment proceeding u/s 153A. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in considering the original return filed before search for levy of penalty abated or non-est. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT (A) erred in holding that inadvertent mistakes can only

NILESH SUBHASH CHOPDA,,AHMEDNAGAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed in the terms aforesaid

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

reassessment proceedings. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) without appreciating that: (a) The learned AO has levied penalty at Rs.66,160/- which is wrong and which ought to have been levied at calculated tax of Rs.45

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLIGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

5A) of the Income tax rules, the prescribed authority for the purpose of\nsection 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is the Secretary, Department of Scientific\nand Industrial Research (DSIR), Govt. of India. Information from DSIR reveals\nthat the R&D unit of M/s HTTSPL (now merged with appellant company) was not\napproved u/s 35(2AB) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

5A) of the Income tax rules, the prescribed authority for the purpose of\nsection 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is the Secretary, Department of Scientific\nand Industrial Research (DSIR), Govt. of India. Information from DSIR reveals\nthat the R&D unit of M/s HTTSPL (now merged with appellant company) was not\napproved u/s 35(2AB) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

5A) of the Income tax rules, the prescribed authority for the purpose of\nsection 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is the Secretary, Department of Scientific\nand Industrial Research (DSIR), Govt. of India. Information from DSIR reveals\nthat the R&D unit of M/s HTTSPL (now merged with appellant company) was not\napproved u/s 35(2AB) of the Income

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD vs. ENDURANCE TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, AURANGABAD

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

5A) of the Income tax rules, the prescribed authority for the purpose of\nsection 35(2AB) of the Income Tax Act is the Secretary, Department of Scientific\nand Industrial Research (DSIR), Govt. of India. Information from DSIR reveals\nthat the R&D unit of M/s HTTSPL (now merged with appellant company) was not\napproved u/s 35(2AB) of the Income