DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 348 1TR 306 (SC) that such inadvertence cannot be termed as an instance attracting the impugned penalty provision in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We repeat that the assessee'smultifolded errors hereinabove inter alia in not having declared only two sale transactions instead of three, not adjusting cost of indexation

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

house property • Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim holding that assessee, being a company, was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54 - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

property income were genuine and the explanation offered by him was duly substantiated so that the provisions of Sec.271(1)9c) were not attracted. 3.2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have held that the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) were attracted in respect of business

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

property income were genuine and the explanation offered by him was duly substantiated so that the provisions of Sec.271(1)9c) were not attracted. 3.2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have held that the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) were attracted in respect of business

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

property income were genuine and the explanation offered by him was duly substantiated so that the provisions of Sec.271(1)9c) were not attracted. 3.2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld.CIT(A) ought not to have held that the provisions of Sec.271(1)(c) were attracted in respect of business

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan Sharma, the assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan Sharma, the assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan Sharma, the assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan Sharma, the assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan Sharma, the assessee

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan Sharma, the assessee

SHRI JIGNESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 271(1)(c) by misinterpreting true sense of judgement delivered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Reliance Petroproducts. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal. 2. The aforesaid appeal has been filled by the assessee against the confirmation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c

SHRI MOHIT RAMESHCHANDRA KHANNA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2132/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Shri Mohit Rameshchandra Khanna, I.T.O, 174-175, Sunrise Park, Vs. Ward-3(3)(3), Opp. Drive In Cinema, Ahmedabad. Drive-In-Road, Ahmedabad.

271(1)(c) of the Act. Asstt. Year 2008-09 3 4.2 The assessee in reply to the SCN submitted that he had disclosed all the facts includingof sale deed, purchase deed, bank statement and computation of capital gain during the assessment proceedings. As such he suffered huge losses in share trading business amounting to Rs. 1

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered the record, we find that both the assessment order and the appellate order are reasoned and speak to the issues raised by the assessee. No specific instance has been pointed out to demonstrate any material submission having been overlooked. As regards Ground No. 4, it is well settled that initiation of penalty

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered the record, we find that both the assessment order and the appellate order are reasoned and speak to the issues raised by the assessee. No specific instance has been pointed out to demonstrate any material submission having been overlooked. As regards Ground No. 4, it is well settled that initiation of penalty

KIRITKUMAR FAKIRCHAND MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 349/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Kiritkumar Fakirchand Mehta, A.C.I.T., 2Nd Floor, P.K. House, Vs. Circle-5(2), B/H, Mj Library, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad.

House, Vs. Circle-5(2), B/h, MJ Library, Ahmedabad. Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad. PAN: ABEPM2721P (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Deepak R. Shah, A.R Revenue by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 28/04/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT INSTITUTE OF HOUSING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act has been altered by the Tribunal, there is no scope of levy of penalty in the instant facts. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. 11. We observe that initially, the assessee filed return of income claiming benefit of exemption under Sections