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

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal

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

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal

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

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal

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

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal

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

house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal

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

house property • Assessing Officer rejected assessee's claim holding that assessee, being a company, was not entitled to claim deduction under section 54 - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for raising a patently false claim of deduction - Whether, on facts, Impugned penalty order did not require any interference - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

house Coopers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2012] 348 1TR 306 (SC) that such inadvertence cannot be termed as an instance attracting the impugned penalty provision in Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. We repeat that the assessee'smultifolded errors hereinabove inter alia in not having declared only two sale transactions instead of three, not adjusting cost of indexation

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

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.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

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.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

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.

property of the company and not of the Director from whose custody it was found. Therefore, in such non-descript and innocuous situation, where the quantum assessment itself is susceptible, the consequence in form of penalty would not, in our view justified. 9.4 Coming to the case of Snita Transport (P) Ltd vs. DCIT reported in 42 taxmann.com

SHRI ATULBHAI BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATUL BABUBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,RANGE-10,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

SHRI ATULBHAI BABULAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-11,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountantmember & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 28/03/2012 and assessment order u/s.143(3) dated 21/12/2011 relevant to Assessment Years (AYs) 2007-08, 2007-08 and 2009-10 respectively. First we take up ITA No.76/Ahd/2011 for AY 2007-08, wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 11.1. the order passed u/s.250

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 under the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') was computed in accordance with

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

house property income, when the assessee claimed expenses relevant to leased out property as business expenditure as pointed out by the AO in the order, which resulted in double deduction. 3. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the disallowance of interest expenses to the extent of Rs.51,10,672/- despite the fact that