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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 4 Shri

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation of Rs. 2 crores was not allowable u/s. 32 of the Act and added back to its total income. Thus the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation of Rs. 2 crores was not allowable u/s. 32 of the Act and added back to its total income. Thus the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation of Rs. 2 crores was not allowable u/s. 32 of the Act and added back to its total income. Thus the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

depreciation of Rs. 2 crores was not allowable u/s. 32 of the Act and added back to its total income. Thus the assessing officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATUL LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

depreciation may kindly be deleted. On the issue of imposition of penalty in respect of claim u/s 80-IA of the Act, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that Hon'ble ITAT in assessee's own case in ITA No. 2970/A/2010 for AY 2003-04 and in ITA No. 3188/A/2010 for AY 2004-05 has deleted the penalty in respect

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon:ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT VsBennet Coleman & Co Ltd 215 Taxman 93 wherein it is held as under: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income [Bona fide claim, disallowance of] - Assessment year

M/S. VIMALACHAL PRINT & PACK PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Us.

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act is initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars on this account. 6. Referring to the above, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that when the assessee had been asked for details of Foreign Exchange Fluctuation , the assessee had realized its mistake of having not capitalized these expenses to the tune

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, BARODA vs. M/S. MADHYA GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD., BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav&Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3315/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2008-09) Dy. Cit M/S. Madhya Gujarat बनाम/ Cir-2(1)(2), 4Th Floor, Vij Co. Ltd. Vs. Sardar Patel Vidyut Aaykar Bhavan, Race Bhawan, Race Course, Course, Baroda- 390007 Baroda- 390007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aad Cm7 439 H .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

depreciation. 5. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. The AO has also initiated penalty u/s. 271

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

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Itat Ahmedabad Vide Ita No. 3289/Ahd/2002 & 3343/Ahd/2002. Addition On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Depb For The Purpose Of Rs.11,41,480 Deduction U/S.80Ia Deduction U/S.115Jb(2) In Respect Of Book Losses Of Pradeep Drug Rs.3, 39,12,399

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was bad in law as no satisfaction was recorded by the assessing officer at the time of assessment proceedings. It was also submitted that all the issues of addition/disallowance were made legal and debatable and there was not any wrong filing of particulars and I.T.A No. 347/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2001-02 Page

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:

penalty order passed under section 271[1][C] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2001-02. I.T.A No. 600/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2001-02 Page No 2 Akar Laminators Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing

SHIVGANGA COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4,, GANDHINAGAR

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Hon’Ble & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1498/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shivganga Cold Storage Ito बनाम/ Pvt. Ltd. Ward-4 Vs. Block No. 530, Vill: Sampa Gandhinagar Dehgam – Modasa Highway, Dehgam, Dist: Gandhinagar "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aan Cs2 086 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Rupesh R. Shah, Ar Lalit P. Jain, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 03/01/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 22/03/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Mahavir Prasad - Jm: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Appeal No. Cit(A)-3/Gnr/171/2015-16 Dated 13.05.2016 Arising From Out Of Penalty Order Dated 28.08.2015 For Confirming The Penalty U/S. 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Facts of the case are that original Return of Income was filed on 29/09/2012, declaring Loss of Rs. 11,68,290/- on account of Unabsorbed Depreciation

BHIKHABHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,KALOL vs. ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessees are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2008-09

u/s. 271(1)(c) of IT Act without considering meaning of “Inaccurate Particular” and “Concealment of Income” for levying Penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act. The Lrd. AO has made penalty haphazardly without considering legality and factual position scenario of the nature of transaction & wrongly applied provision of IT Act. In Fact, the appellant has admitted the addition

AXIS BANK LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT (A)-6, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Ground raised by the assessee reads as under: 1. The learned CIT(A) erred in imposing penalty for filing of inaccurate particulars of income in Income Tax Return. The Bank was under a bona fide belief that depreciation