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

loss account and balance sheet only reflecting various asset, sundry creditor & debtor but not produced books of account or details to establish the nexus between borrowed fund to such loan & advances. Further, The A.O. has not treated the interest income as income from other sources. It is therefore such alternative ground cannot be accepted. In totality this ground is dismissed

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

loss account and balance sheet only reflecting various asset, sundry creditor & debtor but not produced books of account or details to establish the nexus between borrowed fund to such loan & advances. Further, The A.O. has not treated the interest income as income from other sources. It is therefore such alternative ground cannot be accepted. In totality this ground is dismissed

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

loss account and balance sheet only reflecting various asset, sundry creditor & debtor but not produced books of account or details to establish the nexus between borrowed fund to such loan & advances. Further, The A.O. has not treated the interest income as income from other sources. It is therefore such alternative ground cannot be accepted. In totality this ground is dismissed

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

loss account and balance sheet only reflecting various asset, sundry creditor & debtor but not produced books of account or details to establish the nexus between borrowed fund to such loan & advances. Further, The A.O. has not treated the interest income as income from other sources. It is therefore such alternative ground cannot be accepted. In totality this ground is dismissed

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

loss account and balance sheet only reflecting various asset, sundry creditor & debtor but not produced books of account or details to establish the nexus between borrowed fund to such loan & advances. Further, The A.O. has not treated the interest income as income from other sources. It is therefore such alternative ground cannot be accepted. In totality this ground is dismissed

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VINI COSMETIC PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

carry forward of losses amounting to Rs. 1,21,63,139/- and consequent short levy of tax. The Leaned AO, therefore, came to a finding that inaccurate particulars of income was furnished by the assessee and thus penalty DCIT vs. Vini Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year. 2012-13 proceeding has been initiated and ultimately imposed penalty u/s 271

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

carried us to Page No. 15 of the Paper-Book where the working of Total Income is given and deduction of exempted income of Rs. 1,90,16,868/- u/s 2(14) is clearly reported. According to the Ld. A/R, these all details were furnished by the assessee himself in the audited accounts and Return of Income filed and there

M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result the levy of the penalty for an amount of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 347/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Anuj Mehta, Vs. Ward-3(1)(3), Nandanvan Opp. Shapath Iv, Ahmedabad. Nr.Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad.

271(1)(c) of the Act for an amount of Rs. 28,41,863/- ordered to be levied by the assessing officer and confirmed by the “ Ld. CIT(A)”. 4. The appellant is a domestic public limited company incorporated on 03.09.1981 and is engaged in the business of manufacturing of GI Pipe fittings and assessed to tax bearing PAN:AABCR0270K

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

u/s. 271(1)(c). In view of the aforesaid facts and respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court we are of the view that the penalty order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and therefore the order levying penalty cannot be upheld. Even on merits the factual position that emerges is that

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

carried out with Government owned Transwind Communication and Electronics Pvt. Ltd. vs DCIT Asst.Year – 2010-11 companies, all the receipts n connection with the contracts so undertaken am invariably by crossed account payee bank instrument This addition will not be viewed as concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof and no consequential penalty will be initiated in this

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJALPUR vs. DIGITAL BIOTECH PVT. LTD., MEMNAGAR

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs A/9, Yashprabha Apartment, Ward-1(1)(3), Behind Janta Ice Cream, Ahmedabad Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad -380052 Pan : Aaccd 1831 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. While allowing the appeal, Ld. CIT (A) relied on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Motto Tiles Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and held ITO Vs. Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17 3 that the notice u/s 148 is not sustainable and the same

ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.RUSHABH VATIKA,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

loss of revenue. The penalty under this section is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is in the matter of prosecution u/s. 276C. What is required is that there is concealment/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income that would be sufficient to levy penalty. 6. Except the above mentioned letter dated

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these

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)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Penalty Paid 464687 0 22111 Refreshment / Entertainment 1613623 1613623 22144 Revenue Stamps Expenses 969 969 22133 Seminar Expenses 18000 18000 22135 Security Expenses 12658306 12658306 22147 Service Charges Exp. 5641 5641 22146 Share Custodian Fees 723541 723541 22136 Share listing Fees 82725 82725 22137 Share Transfer Fees 15443 15443 22141 Tender Fees (Paid by 234374 234374 22182 Consultancy Charges

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Penalty Paid 464687 0 22111 Refreshment / Entertainment 1613623 1613623 22144 Revenue Stamps Expenses 969 969 22133 Seminar Expenses 18000 18000 22135 Security Expenses 12658306 12658306 22147 Service Charges Exp. 5641 5641 22146 Share Custodian Fees 723541 723541 22136 Share listing Fees 82725 82725 22137 Share Transfer Fees 15443 15443 22141 Tender Fees (Paid by 234374 234374 22182 Consultancy Charges

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT(A), A'BAD-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeals of the assessee are partly allowed and the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

Penalty Paid 464687 0 22111 Refreshment / Entertainment 1613623 1613623 22144 Revenue Stamps Expenses 969 969 22133 Seminar Expenses 18000 18000 22135 Security Expenses 12658306 12658306 22147 Service Charges Exp. 5641 5641 22146 Share Custodian Fees 723541 723541 22136 Share listing Fees 82725 82725 22137 Share Transfer Fees 15443 15443 22141 Tender Fees (Paid by 234374 234374 22182 Consultancy Charges