ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

disallowance.\nSubsequently, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty\nproceedings under section 270A of the Act by issuance of notice dated\n11.03.2023. In response, the assessee submitted that there was no\nconcealment or misreporting of income, and that the omission to file\nthe return under section 139(1) was entirely inadvertent and\nunintentional, attributable to lack of professional advice and\nmisunderstanding regarding

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned A.O.\n==End of page 16 OCR==\nITA No.415,416 and 417/Ahd/2025\n17\nfailed to appreciate the facts that the said disallowance is uncalled and\nunwanted. Further, CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal\nby upholding the addition made by learned A.O. amounting to\nRs.68

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned A.O. ITA No.415,416 and 417/Ahd/2025 17 failed to appreciate the facts that the said disallowance is uncalled and unwanted. Further, CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal by upholding the addition made by learned A.O. amounting to Rs.68,33,529/- and by not considering the appellant

BARODA DISTRICT COOPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS UNION LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for Asst

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

section 80P(2)(d) of the IT Act, 1961. The learned A.O. ITA No.415,416 and 417/Ahd/2025 17 failed to appreciate the facts that the said disallowance is uncalled and unwanted. Further, CIT (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal by upholding the addition made by learned A.O. amounting to Rs.68,33,529/- and by not considering the appellant

INFOANALYTICA CONSULTING PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty u/s

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 270A(2) rws. 270A(9) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the under reported income of Rs.3,04,116/-on the basis of the merit in the case of the assessee. 4. In appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the penalty order with the following observations: 6.2 Since the appellant failed to comply with the provisions

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

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.513/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2020-21 Gandhinagar District Co- The Asst.Cit बनाम/ Op.Milk Producers Union Ltd. Circle, Gandhinagar V/S. K. Road, Gidc Electronics Estate Sector-25, Gandhinagar Gujarat – 382 024 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaajg 1061 B (अपीलाथ%/ Appellant) (&' यथ%/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rignesh Das, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 25/09/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 03/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

disallowing deduction u/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. 3. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in not allowing the appellant with deduction of Rs. 50,000/- u/s. 80P(2)(c) of the Act. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming action of the Ld. AO in treating

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

270A of the I T Act. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Madhumita Roy

270A of the I T Act. 3.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

KOSHAMBH MULTITRED PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

disallowance .That therefore, the assessee could not be charged with having underreported any income for levy of penalty under section 270A(2

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

2)(x) of the Act, which was held as not falling in the category of underreporting or misreporting of income. 7.1 The assessee has also contended that his case is covered under the exception under Section 270A(6) of the Act. The said section is reproduced for the sake of easy understanding. Penalty for under-reporting and misreporting of income

SHREE SWATI TEXDYES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “01. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) ("Ld. C1T(A)") has erred in confirming the penalty of Rs. 3,69,579 under section 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (" the Act") on account of disallowance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. If the disallowance u/s14A r.w.r. 8D computed in view of above directions comes to less than the dividend income of 1207.96/- crores treated as exempt by the AO, then instead of making disallowance, the dividend income shall be treated as taxable as shown by the appellant in the return of income.” 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order the Grounds

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. If the disallowance u/s14A r.w.r. 8D computed in view of above directions comes to less than the dividend income of 1207.96/- crores treated as exempt by the AO, then instead of making disallowance, the dividend income shall be treated as taxable as shown by the appellant in the return of income.” 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order the Grounds

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. If the disallowance u/s14A r.w.r. 8D computed in view of above directions comes to less than the dividend income of 1207.96/- crores treated as exempt by the AO, then instead of making disallowance, the dividend income shall be treated as taxable as shown by the appellant in the return of income.” 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order the Grounds

THE JT.CIT, (OSD)CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD., VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

2. If the disallowance u/s14A r.w.r. 8D computed in view of above directions comes to less than the dividend income of 1207.96/- crores treated as exempt by the AO, then instead of making disallowance, the dividend income shall be treated as taxable as shown by the appellant in the return of income.” 5. Aggrieved against the appellate order the Grounds

SHAILESHKUMAR DAHYABHAI PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(1)(2) (NOW DCIT CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, Ground Number 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2,27,719/- were Shaileshkumar Dahyabhai Patel vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 5– disallowed. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining total income at ₹1,79,22,447/- and also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A

PARULBEN VIJAYKUMAR PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A of the Act for ready reference:- “(1) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, during the course of any proceedings under this Act, direct that any person who has under-reported his income shall be liable to pay a penalty in addition to tax, if any, on the under-reported income. (2

ERIS LIFESCIENCES LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI (PRESENT JURISDICTION - THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, for assessment year 2022-23, the appeal of the Department is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

270A for misreporting/underreporting were also initiated. 3. In appeal before CIT(Appeals), the assessee raised grounds challenging the 14A disallowance, the allocation of employee benefit expenses, the disallowances under section 37(1), the PF disallowance, the rejection of additional claims regarding MAT computation, and the computation of 80-IE deduction and MAT credit. 4. In the appellate order