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

u/s. 271(L)(c) on addition of Rs.40,12,76,441/- in the book profit us. 115JB being the remuneration received from partnership firm. The penalty on this account has been imposed by the Assessing Officer as an alternative measure if tax payable under normal provisions turn out to be finally lower than the tax payable u/s.115JB. Undisputedly, the appellant

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption

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)

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption

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.

exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty was to be levied under section 271(1)(c)-Held, yes [Paras 27 and 28] [In favour of revenue]" (v) The Hon'ble High Court

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.

exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty was to be levied under section 271(1)(c)-Held, yes [Paras 27 and 28] [In favour of revenue]" (v) The Hon'ble High Court

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.

exempt from tax and assessee was consciously aware of real position and knowingly furnished inaccurate particulars of income in return that land sold was an agricultural land, there was willful concealment and, thus, penalty was to be levied under section 271(1)(c)-Held, yes [Paras 27 and 28] [In favour of revenue]" (v) The Hon'ble High Court

INDIAN CHRONICLE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

exempt LTCG of Rs.8,52,63,544/- in the book profit and accordingly determined the tax payable by the assessee. As the book profit of the assessee was higher than the normal profit, tax was computed on the book profit. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271

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 Act. Further the argument of the Revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income" is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law, tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. I.T.A No. 600/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2001-02 Page

CHARTERED SPEED LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

exemption, penalty cannot be imposed. The penalty levied stands set aside." The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return." 8.2. Thus in our considered view, Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s

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

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI JURIDICTIONAL AO THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

penalty itself u/s 271(1)(c) will not be attracted in the present case. Beside this, as per the submissions of the ld. A.R. for assessment year 2013-14, the same addition was deleted. Thus, ITA No. 889/Ahd/2023 is allowed. 6. As regards ITA No. 890/Ahd/2023, the ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court

CITIZEN CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.,VADODARA vs. NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE JURISDICTIONAL AO THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member)

penalty itself u/s 271(1)(c) will not be attracted in the present case. Beside this, as per the submissions of the ld. A.R. for assessment year 2013-14, the same addition was deleted. Thus, ITA No. 889/Ahd/2023 is allowed. 6. As regards ITA No. 890/Ahd/2023, the ld. A.R. relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court