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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

Exemption) PAN: ATFPS6366M Ahmedabad Assessee by: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. A.R. & Shri Parimalsinh, B. Parmar, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 21-03-2022 Date of pronouncement : 30-03-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These six appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

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

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

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 The assessee also submitted that all the necessary details about capital gain and its exemption u/s

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

exemption claimed by the assessee treating the lands as not being capital assets as per section 2(14) of the Act was not available. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.06.2017, the Ld. AO also imposed penalty u/s 271

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

exemption u/s 54B and 54F and/or the addition made by the Learned AO. 4. The Learned AO in the penalty proceeding issued a show-cause notice on 28.01.2014 as to why penalty u/s 271

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

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 ITO, WARD-2(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JAYANTILAL MAFATLAL PRAJAPATI,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1476/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12)

u/s 271(1 )(c) of the Act The AO levied the penalty stating that as an addition has been made to the returned income, the same shall be deemed to represent the concealed income. 5.1 The appellant contended that he believed that land being agricultural, it was exempt

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

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

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