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

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. 10. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in charging interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act. 11. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Id. AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade lax otherwise payable by them, would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. In the present case also, if the case of the Appellant

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade lax otherwise payable by them, would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. In the present case also, if the case of the Appellant

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade lax otherwise payable by them, would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. In the present case also, if the case of the Appellant

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

nature, actuated by a mala fide intention to evade lax otherwise payable by them, would get away without paying the tax legally payable by them, if their cases are not picked up for scrutiny. This would take away the deterrent effect, which these penalty provisions in the Act have. In the present case also, if the case of 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 levied on the basis of notice u/s 274.271 dated 30.08.2016 is invalid & bad in law as it does not state clear default for which it is issued". The CIT(A) erred in stating that "in the notice issued u/s 271 (l)(c) of the Act the default has been clearly specified”. b) Without prejudice to above : The order passed

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Justice Bunglow, (Appellant) Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: ACPPP9429B (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr. D.R. Respondent by: Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Date of hearing : 13-01-2022 Date of pronouncement : 08-02-2022 आदेश/ORDER PER : ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- 1. This is an appeal by Revenue against the order dated 26.02.2019 of CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad in Appeal

M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result the levy of the penalty for an amount of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 347/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Anuj Mehta, Vs. Ward-3(1)(3), Nandanvan Opp. Shapath Iv, Ahmedabad. Nr.Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad.

u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is a legal infirmity, which is fatal to the imposition of penalty because in the absence of specifying the ground on which penalty is initiated, there is a violation of principles of natural justice

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

natural justice, according to us, deliberately been violated by the authorities below in order to impose penalty. The same depicts close mindness of the authorities below. It is a settled principle of law that the penalty order without considering the same imposed u/s 271

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

u/s 40A(3) of the Act is not sustainable and we direct deletion of the same. Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai Vs. DCIT AY : 2009-10 12 17. We regard to the addition made by disallowing loading and unloading expenses, the contention made by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) is as under:- “2.2.1 In so far as the penalty levied

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

u/s 271(l)(c) issued and served on 23.12.2016 giving it an opportunity of being heard and to give submission either personally or through Authorised representative, against the proposed levy of penalty. In response to that the assessee failed to furnish reply. 2.2. Thereafter, for the sake of natural justice

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

u/s 271(l)(c) issued and served on 23.12.2016 giving it an opportunity of being heard and to give submission either personally or through Authorised representative, against the proposed levy of penalty. In response to that the assessee failed to furnish reply. 2.2. Thereafter, for the sake of natural justice

M/S. ACCURA ENTERPRISE PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

natural justice. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred both in law and on the facts of the case in confirming the penalty of Rs.6,34,716/- levied u/s 271

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 hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

271(1)(c) of the Act as discussed above fails. Accordingly, we are of the view that that there cannot be any penalty with respect to the quantum additions which have been deleted by the authorities whether on merit or on technical grounds. Thus, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is hereby allowed whereas ground

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

271(1)(c) of the Act as discussed above fails. Accordingly, we are of the view that that there cannot be any penalty with respect to the quantum additions which have been deleted by the authorities whether on merit or on technical grounds. Thus, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is hereby allowed whereas ground