THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

purchases which were not disputed. It is the payment to the creditors which have been held as bogus in the statement furnished under Section 132(4) of the Act. Thus, it can be concluded that the claim of the assessee was inaccurate. Accordingly, it appears that the penalty provisions under Section 271(1

M/S. MORAKHIA COPPER & ALLOYS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 161/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S. Morakhia Copper & Alloys Pvt. A.C.I.T., Ltd., Vs. Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), 12, 2Nd Floor, B Wing, Ahmedabad. Mardia Plaza, C.G. Road, Ahmedabad-380006. Pan: Aaacm3439J

bogus purchases shown by the assessee. The assessee during the assessment proceedings initiated the penalty proceedings under section 271(1

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus. Furthermore, the assessee cannot ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 14 be made subject to the addition if the party does not respond to the notice issued by the revenue. As such the revenue has been given ample power under the statute for collecting the information from the concerned party. In the present case, the AO should have

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus. Furthermore, the assessee cannot ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 14 be made subject to the addition if the party does not respond to the notice issued by the revenue. As such the revenue has been given ample power under the statute for collecting the information from the concerned party. In the present case, the AO should have

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) holding that the issue has been decided in favour of appellant by the Hon’ble ITAT, consequential penalty u/s.271

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ZODIAC EICHER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed

purchases shown by the assessee were bogus. Subsequently the assessee has furnished merely affidavits of the 21 persons and 2 sub- dealers and could not produce any person/party for examination to controvert the findings of the assessing officer. Section 271(1

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

section 271(1)(c) would be deemed to be representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 13. In the light of the above, if we examine the facts of the present case, then it would reveal that as far as addition with respect to suppressed profit is concerned, it is an estimated addition which

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances

SHRI MUKESH HARJIBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Mukesh Harjibhai Patel Acit, Cir.5(3) 9, Malhar Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Shilaj Nandoli Road Kalol, Gandhinagar. Pan : Abvp P9561 H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri J.L. Bhatia, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 8.6.2018 In Cit(A)-5/Acit Cir.5(3)/10028/2017-18 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-5, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2010-11 Against Confirmation Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” For Short).

bogus purchases to Rs.11,20,000/- on estimate basis, and that order has attained finality. Against the estimation of income, the ld.AO has levied penalty under section 271(1

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Purchases, disallowed by the AO, in terms of quantity and value. Hence, no penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) of the Act in respect of additions sustained, on estimate basis, and same is deserves to be deleted. 1.3 That as per law and as per settled legal propositions, penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

1,34,94,375/- is confirmed u/s 69C of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,63,98,689 (Rs.29,04,314/- + Rs.1,34,94,375/-) is upheld on account of bogus and unexplained purchases out of total disallowance of purchases made by AO at Rs.5,24,91,187/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the balance amount

MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVE. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

1,34,94,375/- is confirmed u/s 69C of the Act. Thus, the addition of Rs.1,63,98,689 (Rs.29,04,314/- + Rs.1,34,94,375/-) is upheld on account of bogus and unexplained purchases out of total disallowance of purchases made by AO at Rs.5,24,91,187/-. The AO is accordingly directed to delete the balance amount

THE JT.CIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI NILESH RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2010-11. I.T.A No. 267/Ahd/2020 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Jt. CIT Vs. Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Shah 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 8 days in filing the above appeal by the Revenue

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1,42,03,168/- on account of bogus purchases and unexplained credits, thereby completing the assessment at an enhanced income. 5. Aggrieved by the set-aside assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) raising multiple grounds. The primary ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

1,42,03,168/- on account of bogus purchases and unexplained credits, thereby completing the assessment at an enhanced income. 5. Aggrieved by the set-aside assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(Appeals) raising multiple grounds. The primary ITA Nos. 2339,2412,2413&2420/Ahd/2025 Hajimohmadsafi Abdulrehman Shaikh vs. DCIT Asst. Years