CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases, the Ld. A.R. submitted that difference in receipt to that of Form 26AS cannot be the reason for making the addition, the penalty was on the non- furnishing of particulars of income which is not just and proper. The Ld. A.R. further submitted that

BANK OF BARODA,ANAND vs. THE ACIT, CPC, TDS, GHAZIABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

272A became redundant and by adding a proviso to the said section, this effect was therefore limited upto 01.07.2012. 17. In essence, section 234E thus prescribed for the first time charging of a fee for every day of default in filing of statement under sub-section (3) of section 200 or any proviso to sub-section (3) of section 206C

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS to the Government Treasury was not a negligent act on the part of the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, Section 271C of the Act is not properly invoked. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 189 Taxman 322 is applicable in the present case though the Section mentioned in that decision is Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS to the Government Treasury was not a negligent act on the part of the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, Section 271C of the Act is not properly invoked. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 189 Taxman 322 is applicable in the present case though the Section mentioned in that decision is Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS to the Government Treasury was not a negligent act on the part of the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, Section 271C of the Act is not properly invoked. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 189 Taxman 322 is applicable in the present case though the Section mentioned in that decision is Section

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

TDS to the Government Treasury was not a negligent act on the part of the assessee but due to unavoidable circumstances. Therefore, Section 271C of the Act is not properly invoked. The ratio laid down in CIT vs. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd., 189 Taxman 322 is applicable in the present case though the Section mentioned in that decision is Section

M/S. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.872/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1693/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1. The Income Tax 1.Shree Parshwanath बनाम/ Corporation Officer, Ward-9(1) Vs. 50, 3Rd Floor Ahmedabad Harisiddh Chambers Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 014 2. Shree Parshwanath 2. Income-Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Corporation, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfs 3093 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee by : Ms. Arti Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR 31/12/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned cross-appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the common

THE ITO, WARD-9(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHREE PARSHWANATH CORPORATION,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.872/Ahd/2015 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1693/Ahd/2015 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11) 1. The Income Tax 1.Shree Parshwanath बनाम/ Corporation Officer, Ward-9(1) Vs. 50, 3Rd Floor Ahmedabad Harisiddh Chambers Ashram Road Ahmedabad-380 014 2. Shree Parshwanath 2. Income-Tax Officer Ward-9(1) Corporation, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfs 3093 C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee By : Ms. Arti Shah, Ar Revenue By : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr

C .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellants) (""यथ" / Respondents) Assessee by : Ms. Arti Shah, AR Revenue by : Mr. B.P. Srivastava, Sr.DR 31/12/2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement 01/02/2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned cross-appeals have been filed by the Assessee and the Revenue against the common