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

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)

bogus purchases was restricted to 5% thereby confirmed the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) to 5% of the bogus

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

purchases, but also failed to submit explanation for non initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act. It has been clearly established that the assessee had resorted to bogus

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. It was common ground that the issue pertaining to which penalty was levied in both the cases was identical, and therefore, both the appeals needed to be heard together. Accordingly, both the appeals were taken up together for adjudication. ITA No.2265 and 2266/Ahd/2018 2 3. Thereafter

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short). 2. It was common ground that the issue pertaining to which penalty was levied in both the cases was identical, and therefore, both the appeals needed to be heard together. Accordingly, both the appeals were taken up together for adjudication. ITA No.2265 and 2266/Ahd/2018 2 3. Thereafter

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

purchases of the amount of Rs. 97,87,524/- made from M/s Vishal Trader under consideration was disallowed by the assessing officer. The assessing officer has also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the bogus

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) in respect of addition/disallowance of Rs. 42,48,118/- made by the A.O. on account of bogus purchases

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and liable for penalty under section271(1)(c) of the Act.” 14. On perusal of above, it is clear that the AO has not levied the penalty on the specific charge as mandated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. In such facts and circumstances the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus. Furthermore, the assessee cannot ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 14 be made subject to the addition if the party does not respond to the notice issued by the revenue. As such the revenue has been given ample power under the statute for collecting the information from the concerned party. In the present case, the AO should have

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

bogus. Furthermore, the assessee cannot ITA nos.1580/AHD/2016 & 639/Ahd//2012 A.Y. 2003-04 14 be made subject to the addition if the party does not respond to the notice issued by the revenue. As such the revenue has been given ample power under the statute for collecting the information from the concerned party. In the present case, the AO should have