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

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

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

INCOME TAX OFFICER, AHMEDABAD vs. RAJESHRI AVAS DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 758/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Ito Rajeshri Avas Developers बनाम/ Ward -3(1)(1), Ahmedabad Private Limited Vs. A-9, Anupam Colony, Lbs Road, Opp. Chirag Diamond, Bapunagar, Gujarat 380024 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacr9139G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) None अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R.

1)(c) of the Act on account of bogus purchase. The assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was finalized on 26.03.2016 assessing total income at Rs.3,97,36,810/- on account of bogus purchases which was further confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. Parallelly, the penalty proceeding under Section 271

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

c) read with section 274 of the Act were separately initiated on this\nissue.\n59.\nIn 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 Mahesh Karsanbhai

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

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

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

c) read with section 274 of the Act were separately initiated on this\nissue.\n59.\nIn 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 Mahesh Karsanbhai

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

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(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

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(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

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, 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

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

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

271(1)(c)\nof the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the \"Act\")\nand relates to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2010-11.\nITA No. 32/Ahd/2022 [Xcelris\nLabs Limited vs. DCIT] A.Y. 2010-11\n-2-\n2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:\n\"1.\nThe learned grossly erred in law and on facts of the case