SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is bad in law and as such the entire penalty proceedings should be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is bad in law and as such the entire penalty proceedings should be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is bad in law and as such the entire penalty proceedings should be quashed. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on account of the transfer

AIR WIND GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

condone the delay by verifying the genuine and sufficient cause faced by the appellant for not filing the appeal within the prescribed time period. The dismissing of the appeal by not considering various factual and legal grounds raised by the appellant. Hence, the order passed is highly unjustifiable and unlawful. 8. The Lrd. Assessing Authority (NFAC) has on facts

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

JT.CIT(E), CIRCLE-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2 (EXEMP), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

JT.CIT(E),CIRCLE -2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

JT.CIT(EXEMPTION)CIRCL-2 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

condoning the delay was not correctly exercised by the Commissioner Income Tax. 15.1 Similarly co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case ITO -Vs- Ramji Mandir Religious And Charitable Trust reported in (2023) 69 CCH 0288 Ahd Trib distinguished the Apex Court judgement and held as follows: I.T.A Nos. 342/Ahd/2023 & 5 Ors. A.Ys. 2016-17 to 2018-19 Page

PEPPERAZZI HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: Final Appeal.

condone delay: “The expression ‘sufficient cause or reason’ as provided in sub- section (5) of section 253 of the Act is used in identical position in the Limitation Act, 1963 and the CPC. Such expression has also been used in other sections of the Income-tax Act such as sections 274

SHREE HARSANIJI PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION), PALANPUR

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

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2015-16 Shree Harsaniji Public Charitable Trust Ito (Exemption) 32, Shiv Society Part-2 Vs Palanpur. Nr.B.K. Cinema Mehsana 384 002. Pan : Aaats 7750 B.

delay in filing Form No.10 may be condoned under section 119(2)(b) of the Act. In this connection, the assessee invited Circular No.273 dated 3.6.1980 issued by CBDT, which reads as under: “In exercise of the powers conferred under section 119(2)(b ) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby

SAGAR RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

AARAV FINANCIAL SERVICES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

VICKY RAJESH JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of respective assessees are partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

delay is condoned. 17. The ld. A.R further submitted that as regards ground no. 1 (1 to 5), the same is identical to that of the assessee’s case for assessment year 2011-12 and case of Shri Sagar Jhaveri. 18. The ld. D.R. submitted that the issue is identical to that of the case of Sagar Jhaveri and assessee

TEXMAT AGENCIES PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s application for condonation of delay is hereby dismissed

274 does not specify as to whether the Appellant is guilty of having "furnished inaccurate particulars of income" or of having "concealed particulars of such income". From the fact of the present case, the show cause notice is defective as it does not spell out the grounds on which the penalty is sought to be imposed. Following the decision

KOLET RESORT CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

condoning the delay. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the appeal and observed that the appellant company has neither concealed any income nor furnished any inaccurate particulars to entail itself liable for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not admitting the appeal and appreciating the fact