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 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

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,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

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,SATELLITE vs. WARD 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of Rs.74,86,465. 3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) has failed to record satisfaction qua inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income while concluding the assessment order. 3.2 The Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) has failed to understand that

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of Rs.74,86,465. 3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) has failed to record satisfaction qua inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income while concluding the assessment order. 3.2 The Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) has failed to understand that

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of Rs.74,86,465. 3.1 That in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) has failed to record satisfaction qua inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income while concluding the assessment order. 3.2 The Ld. AO as well as the CIT(A) has failed to understand that

MRS. PRATIBHA ASHOKKUMAR GODHA,NADIAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1 (PREVIOUSLY WARD-5), NADIAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumarasstt.Year : 2013-14 Mrs.Pratibha Ashokumar Godha The Ito, Ward-1 10, Prena Park, Vs (Previously Ward-5) Nr.Kashimir Park Society Nadiad. Nana Kumbhnath Road Nadiad. Pan : Afepg 0254 M (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri Pratibha Parmar Revenue By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

property habitable. Further, purchase or construction are not mutually exclusive options u/s 54 exemption. 7. It is submitted that all expenditure incurred to make house 'livable' is eligible for exemption u/s 54 against capital gains.” 3. After hearing both the parties, I have gone through the notice under section 274 read with section 271 of the Income

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

house property is allowable as deduction during the year under consideration. Therefore the deduction sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 11,26,619/- which may please be allowed. 5. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

house property is allowable as deduction during the year under consideration. Therefore the deduction sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 11,26,619/- which may please be allowed. 5. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

house property is allowable as deduction during the year under consideration. Therefore the deduction sustained by CIT(A) for Rs. 11,26,619/- which may please be allowed. 5. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

u/s\n271AAC(1) and Ld. CIT(A) failed to upheld the same.\n3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand that a mechanical order of\nwithout, enumerating the specific charge is wholly illegal and\"\n3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and\nearned income from salary, house property, capital gains and income

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT INSTITUTE OF HOUSING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act has been altered by the Tribunal, there is no scope of levy of penalty in the instant facts. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. 11. We observe that initially, the assessee filed return of income claiming benefit of exemption under Sections

NIKSHAL POPERTIES PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Housing Society Ltd. and the balance of Rs.36 crores was routed back through the proprietary concern of the director of AOPL i.e M/s. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 16 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 Matrix International, who in turn gave the money back to M/s. Ardor Overseas

ARDOR OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Housing Society Ltd. and the balance of Rs.36 crores was routed back through the proprietary concern of the director of AOPL i.e M/s. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 16 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 Matrix International, who in turn gave the money back to M/s. Ardor Overseas

ITO, WARD-1(1)(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ARDOR OVERSEAS PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumaray Sl.

Housing Society Ltd. and the balance of Rs.36 crores was routed back through the proprietary concern of the director of AOPL i.e M/s. ITA Nos. 2785 & 2812/Ahd/2017 16 Cross Appeals : Ardor Overseas Pvt Ltd VS. DCIT and ITA No.206Ahd/2018- Nikshal Properties Pvt Ltd. AY : 2014-15 Matrix International, who in turn gave the money back to M/s. Ardor Overseas

MANSHA TEXTILES PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mansha Textiles P. Ltd. The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 1, Vikram Society Vadodara. Gotri Road, Vadodara Pan : Aadcm 0191 J (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Ms.Urvashi Shodhan, Ar Revenue By : Shri B.P. Srivastava, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

penalty under section 271(1)(c). Interest as per the Act was directed to be charged. 2.7 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The appeal was instituted on 25.01.2018 against the AO’s order dated 16.03.2015, thus involving a delay of about 1012 days. The assessee’s case on condonation was that serious internal disputes between existing