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

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)(c

MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

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

bogus expenses by rejecting the books of accounts. On appeal against the assessment order, Ld. CIT(A) restricted the disallowance and estimated to 7% of the profit instead of 40% disallowed by the A.O. 3. On further appeal, ITAT confirmed the order of Ld. CIT(A) by dismissing both Assessee and Revenue appeals. Thereafter the A.O. initiated penalty proceedings

SMT. REKHA ANIL DUGGAD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Pramod M Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumar

Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called “the Act”). 2. The assessee before us are the husband and wife engaged in the business of trade in brass and Proprietors of two different firms wherein common disallowances were been made on account of bogus purchases

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. It was common ground that the issue pertaining to which penalty was levied in both the cases was identical, and therefore, both the appeals needed to be heard together. Accordingly, both the appeals were taken up together for adjudication. ITA No.2265 and 2266/Ahd/2018

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. It was common ground that the issue pertaining to which penalty was levied in both the cases was identical, and therefore, both the appeals needed to be heard together. Accordingly, both the appeals were taken up together for adjudication. ITA No.2265 and 2266/Ahd/2018

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

purchase register does not reflect expenses of Rs.12,12,400/- claimed by the assessee. Thus, the officer disallowed the unexplained expenses of Rs. 12,12,400/-. The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 28.03.2014 confirmed the addition of Rs. 1,81,860/- due to non verifiability of claim of expenses and also considering the volume of freight receipt

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

c) read with section 274 of the Act were separately initiated on this\nissue.\n59. In appeal, the assessee contended before the CIT(A) that the amount\nof Rs. 15,16,966/- comprised three elements (i) land expense of Rs.\n2,14,92,990/-, (ii) revenue tax of Rs. 16,960/-, and (iii) Rs. 15,00,000/- paid to\nShri

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), several notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee granting opportunities to substantiate the grounds of appeal. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and did not furnish any submissions or evidences in support of its claims

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), several notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee granting opportunities to substantiate the grounds of appeal. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and did not furnish any submissions or evidences in support of its claims

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), several notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee granting opportunities to substantiate the grounds of appeal. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and did not furnish any submissions or evidences in support of its claims

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(Appeals), several notices under section 250 of the Act were issued to the assessee granting opportunities to substantiate the grounds of appeal. However, the assessee failed to respond to any of the notices and did not furnish any submissions or evidences in support of its claims

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

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance on account of income reflected in TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance on account of income reflected in TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance on account of income reflected in TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 271(1)(c) in respect of disallowance on account of income reflected in TDS certificate but not recorded in books of accounts and on account of bogus purchases