AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271B, Section 271BA, Section 271BB, Section 271C, Section 271CA, Section 271D, Section 271E, Section 271F, etc., no penalty shall be imposable on the person or the assessee, as the case may be, for any failure referred to in the said provision, if he proves that there was a reasonable cause for that failure. Section 271F was inserted in Section 273B

SHRI HASMUKHBHAI PRAJAPATI,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271 B. Your appellant therefore in the interest of justice to work out correct quantum of penalty The action of A.O. being uncalled for unwarranted, your appellant, therefore in the interest of justice hereby requests to delete the penalty levied.” 3. All the three grounds of appeal are inter-connected, therefore, for the sake of convenience they are adjudicated

BHARAT MOHANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Bharat Mohanlal Patel The Ito, Ward-4(1)(2) 33, Haridarshan Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Cims Hospital Science City Road Sola, Ahmedabad 380 060. Pan : Akspp 4231 E

Capital Gain on sale of property Rs.14,16,910/- and Income from Other sources of Rs. 1,094/- the same were set off against the F & O loss of Rs. 29,22,559/- and showing a net loss of Rs.5,24,562/-. The AO held that the above claims were not made in the original return of income u/s.139

NARESH GOPALDAS BHOJWANI,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: The Final Hearing Of The Appeal.”

capital gains transaction, the Ld. DR is of the view that the true nature of the transaction needs to be decided for purpose of determining whether penalty may be imposed u/s 271B of the Act. Further, Ld. D.R. argued that it also needs to be ascertained whether the assessee has been engaged in the speculative or non-speculative transaction

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Gains from Business or Profession". Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. The AO observed that the assessee had earned a surplus of Rs.2,04,24,335/- on sale of immovable properties jointly held with others and claimed the same as exempt agricultural income. The AO, however, treated the transaction as an adventure in the nature

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Gains from Business or Profession". Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. The AO observed that the assessee had earned a surplus of Rs.2,04,24,335/- on sale of immovable properties jointly held with others and claimed the same as exempt agricultural income. The AO, however, treated the transaction as an adventure in the nature

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

Gains from Business or Profession". Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 5. The AO observed that the assessee had earned a surplus of Rs.2,04,24,335/- on sale of immovable properties jointly held with others and claimed the same as exempt agricultural income. The AO, however, treated the transaction as an adventure in the nature

USHARANI DHANRAJ VEENA,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the taxpayer stands allowed

271B of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual. The assessee in the year under consideration has made large value transactions of sale and purchase of shares which resulted the loss of Rs. 6,416/- only. But the assessee failed to declare the capital gain transactions in the return of income

PASHPANATHAN DOMINICRAJAN,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.781/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2015-2016 Pashpanathan Dominicrajan, D.C.I.T., B-110, Tejendra Nagar Part-1, Vs. Circle-7(1), Nr. Railway Colony Post Office, Ahmedabad. D-Cabin, Sabarmati Ahmedabad-380019. Pan: Aappd7649K

section 144 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act by making addition of Rs. 15,21,580/- being 5% of the total transaction in securities. A.Y. 2015-16 3 5. The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and contended that during the assessment proceeding, it was submitted that the assessee has incurred loss in the securities transaction. Therefore