NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

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

u/s 271AAC(1) and Ld. CIT(A) failed to upheld the same. ITA Nos. 1539 to 1542/Ahd/2024 Nalini Vijay Shah vs. ITO Asst.Years –2015-16 & 2017-18 - 5– 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand that a mechanical order of without, enumerating the specific charge is wholly illegal and” 3. The brief facts of the case are 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

u/s 271AAC(1) and Ld. CIT(A) failed to upheld the same. ITA Nos. 1539 to 1542/Ahd/2024 Nalini Vijay Shah vs. ITO Asst.Years –2015-16 & 2017-18 - 5– 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand that a mechanical order of without, enumerating the specific charge is wholly illegal and” 3. The brief facts of the case are 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

u/s 271AAC(1) and Ld. CIT(A) failed to upheld the same. ITA Nos. 1539 to 1542/Ahd/2024 Nalini Vijay Shah vs. ITO Asst.Years –2015-16 & 2017-18 - 5– 3.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to understand that a mechanical order of without, enumerating the specific charge is wholly illegal and” 3. The brief facts of the case are that

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) holding that the issue has been decided in favour of appellant by the Hon’ble ITAT, consequential penalty u/s.271

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

penny script without carrying out\nproper inquiries.\n4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not set a\nsiding the assessment as per Section 251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded\nex parte under section 144.\n4.2 That in the law and/ or on facts, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have

VIJAYSINGH NANUSINGH RATHORE,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2011-12 Vijaysingh Manusingh Rathore The Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 130, Kalhar Exotica Vs. Ahmedabad. Science City Road Thaltej, Ahmedabad Gujarat – 380 059. Pan : Adkpr 5315 C (Applicant) (Responent)

Penny stock 32,16,405/- Sale of shares treated as transaction in scrip of unexplained credit; M/s. Vax Housing assessee director in said Finance Corporation company, no evidence Ltd. – Sec. 68 produced The total income was assessed at Rs.50,03,040/-. Penalty proceedings u/s 271

NIRMAN,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalnirman, Vs. 35, Vasantkunj Society, New Dcit, Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad-380007 Ahmedabad [Pan :Aabfn 7155 L] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Parin Shah, Ar Respondent Represented By: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.02.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is initiated for concealment of income. (Disallowance of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-)” 7. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee, observing that assessee was a beneficiary of accommodation entries

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

AHMED LAKADIA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(C) and 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act without there being any element of concealment of income. 12. The Lrd. Assessing Authority has grievously erred in law while passing the order without providing proper and statutory time period to submit the documents reply and proper opportunity of being heard. Hence, the entire proceedings

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PALANPUR, PALANPUR vs. NIKESHKUMAR SHANTILAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

271(1)(c)\nof the Act were also initiated.\n3.\nThe CIT(A) deleted the addition of Rs.1,57,93,993/- and ruled in\nfavour of the assessee. It was observed that M/s. Ice Worth Reality LLP had\nalready been assessed separately, and the alleged bogus LTCG of\nRs.60,87,74,856/- was added in its hands. Since