SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.57,49,50,297/- and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The appellant had preferred appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A)-II, Vadodara and further the appellant and revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Hon'ble ITAT

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. 2. The penalty in the present case was levied on concealment/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income, arising from the following disallowances made by the Assessing Officer which were confirmed upto the ITAT:- Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai Vs. DCIT AY : 2009-10 2 (i) Disallowance u/s

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 was for "furnishing inaccurate particulars of income" whereas the penalty order passed by the AO is for "concealment of particulars of income". The penalty levied of Rs. 1,09,35,080/- on such lines is prayed to be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the above, there is no business

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 2348, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

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

u/s 14A?\n\n2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,64,686/- on account of repairing expenses.\n\n3. The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on the issue of addition of Rs.94,71,966/- in total income as per provisions

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 2,76,33,870.\n9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty despite the fact that the Appellant has not furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income either in return of income or during the course of\nassessment proceedings.\n10. The learned

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F: 20) AO has initiated the penalty

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F: 20) AO has initiated the penalty

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. RADHIKA JEWELLERS, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s. 143(3) on 28-01-2016, however disallowances were made on account of late payment of Provident Fund of Rs.31,950/-, subscription expenses of Rs.6,000/- and out of Car and petrol expenses of Rs.93,313/- and no addition is made out on account of ‘business income’. However, the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings and levied minimum penalty

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

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

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

income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu 208 ITR 377. 8. However the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply filed by the assessee and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.7,97,59,946/- under section 271

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

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

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

income assessed, no penalty u/s 271(1)(c), is to be levied. Similar view was taken by Madras High Court in the Case of CIT Vs Ramaswamy Naidu 208 ITR 377. 8. However the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply filed by the assessee and levied a minimum penalty of Rs.7,97,59,946/- under section 271