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

deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required

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

deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required

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

deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required

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

deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required

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

deposit exceeding Rs. 20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

271(1)(c). 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of cash deposited in bank accounts aggregating to Rs.9,00,000/- 24. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' erred in confirming the penalty u/s

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

271(1)(c). 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of cash deposited in bank accounts aggregating to Rs.9,00,000/- 24. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' erred in confirming the penalty u/s

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

271(1)(c). 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of cash deposited in bank accounts aggregating to Rs.9,00,000/- 24. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' erred in confirming the penalty u/s

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

271(1)(c). 2. Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) in respect of cash deposited in bank accounts aggregating to Rs.9,00,000/- 24. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the ''Ld.CIT (A)'' erred in confirming the penalty u/s

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 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

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 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

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 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In A.Y. 2014–15, the AO adopted a similar line of inquiry and examined the assessee’s bank account with the same society. The total deposits identified during the relevant year amounted to Rs.88,66,48,200/-. The assessee once again claimed that the deposits represented cash sales, interbank transfers

RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In A.Y. 2014–15, the AO adopted a similar line of inquiry and examined the assessee’s bank account with the same society. The total deposits identified during the relevant year amounted to Rs.88,66,48,200/-. The assessee once again claimed that the deposits represented cash sales, interbank transfers

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AAYKAR BHAWAN ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, ELLISBRIDGE AHMEDABAD GUJARAT

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In A.Y. 2014–15, the AO adopted a similar line of inquiry and examined the assessee’s bank account with the same society. The total deposits identified during the relevant year amounted to Rs.88,66,48,200/-. The assessee once again claimed that the deposits represented cash sales, interbank transfers

MANISH RANJAN, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. RASHMIN KANTILAL VAKTA, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 6. In A.Y. 2014–15, the AO adopted a similar line of inquiry and examined the assessee’s bank account with the same society. The total deposits identified during the relevant year amounted to Rs.88,66,48,200/-. The assessee once again claimed that the deposits represented cash sales, interbank transfers

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

penalty U/s 271(1)(b) for non compliance of notices, u/s. 271(1)(c) for concealment of income should not be initiated and levied in your case. 4. You are therefore requested to furnish your explanation/ clarification along with the evidences in this regard as well as point wise reply of notices u/s. 142(1) on or before 13/12/2018 positively

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash deposited in the bank account. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the addition u/s 69 without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in holding that no payment

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SMT. INDUMATIBEN RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

cash deposited in the bank account. 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in making the addition u/s 69 without appreciating the facts in proper perspective. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and law in confirming the action of the Id. AO in holding that no payment