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

B. Parmar, A.R. Date of Hearing 17.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), passed for Assessment Year 2014-15 deleting the levy of penalty under Section 271

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

b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18. It was thus urged that, in view of the availability of substantial own\nfunds and the binding judicial precedents, the disallowance sustained by\nthe CIT(A) under section 14A ought to be deleted in full.\n19. With regard to the disallowance of administrative expenses under\nRule

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)

B” BENCH Before: Smt. Annapurna Gupta, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Assessment Year 2010-11 The JT. CIT, Shri Nilesh Rameshchandra Circle-6(1), Shah, Ahmedabad Vs Prop. Shagun Art, 8, Ram Shyam Apartment, Nr. L.G. Hospital, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 (Appellant) PAN: AFQPS3070R (Respondent) Revenue Represented: Smt. Malarkodi. R, Sr.D.R. Assessee Represented: Shri Karan Shah

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

bogus imports. From the investigations done here, it is seen that the account holders, in whose account cash deposits of more than Rs. 10 Crore was made and which was subsequently transferred via RTGS/NBFT to the shell entities, are either persons of low means who simply lent their identity details (id proof, signature) to unknown persons or are not traceable

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18.\nIt was thus urged that, in view of the availability of substantial own\nfunds and the binding judicial precedents, the disallowance sustained by\nthe CIT(A) under section 14A ought to be deleted in full.\n19.\nWith regard to the disallowance of administrative expenses under\nRule

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

b)\n19,52,09,835/-\n20,76,83,195/-\n18.\nIt was thus urged that, in view of the availability of substantial own\nfunds and the binding judicial precedents, the disallowance sustained by\nthe CIT(A) under section 14A ought to be deleted in full.\n19.\nWith regard to the disallowance of administrative expenses under\nRule

GANDHINAGAR DISTRICT CO.OP.MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGA, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the original return of income

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. under 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 6. Ground no.1 taken by the assessee was not pressed by the Ld. AR of the assessee

GUJARAT VAIBHAV PUBLICATIONS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Act. under 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 6. Ground no.1 taken by the assessee was not pressed by the Ld. AR of the assessee

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-2016 The Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Vishal Exports Overseas P.Ltd. Polytechnic Vs. 301, Sheetal Complex Ahmedabad. Mayur Colony Mithakali, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that – - the assessee is engaged in imports, exports, trading, and generation of electricity. It has been in this line since inception, and the activities were accepted in past

XCELRIS LABS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

B. P. Srivastava, Sr. DR\nDate of Hearing\n13/05/2025\nDate of Pronouncement\n21/07/2025\n(आदेश)/ORDER\nPER SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM:\nThe present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the\norder of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),\nAhmedabad, (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)"), dated\n06.12.2021 confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(1

PARAG DAVE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY CIRCLE-3(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Makarand V. Mahadeokarassessment Year 2016-17

purchase of materials used in such scientific research, the aggregate of the expenditure so laid out or expended within the three years immediately preceding the commencement of the business shall to the extent it is certified by the prescribed authority (See rule 6(1). The prescribed authority under rule 6(1) is Director General (Income-tax Exemptions) in concurrence with

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

purchase of land may taken as the cost of construction of boundary wall on such land. Hence, in the interest of justice, and in absence of any documentary evidences having been produced by the assessee 50% of the cost of land is herby allowed as cost of construction of boundary wall (i.e. 50% of Rs. 5,25,000/- is allowed