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

154 is bad in law 1.1 The initiation of rectification proceedings u/s, ought to be set aside and order ought to be quashed. 2. The penalty levied u/s. 271

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) on 25.07.2014. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 to CIT(A) against above order dated 25.07.2014 on account of factual mistakes apparent from record. In consequence thereof, CIT(A) passed order u/s 154 of the Act on 17.10.2014. The assessee was aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2014 vide which the penalty

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Hence, the ITA No. 701/Ahd/2024 filed by the assessee is allowed. 8. As relates to ITA No. 702/Ahd/2024, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in respect of rectification order dated 25-04-2019 passed u/s. 154

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

penalty imposed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act does not survive. Hence, the ITA No. 701/Ahd/2024 filed by the assessee is allowed. 8. As relates to ITA No. 702/Ahd/2024, the assessee has challenged the order of the CIT(A) in respect of rectification order dated 25-04-2019 passed u/s. 154

SH. BHAVESHKUMAR GANSHYAM PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, on receipt of DVO report dated 28.10.2021, the AO passed rectification order u/s 154

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act preferred by the assessee. In the penalty proceeding, on the basis of such peak balance of Rs.8,95,166/- penalty of Rs.3,15,890/- was levied, which was in turn confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, instant appeal before us. ITA Nos.3343 & 3344/Ahd/2015 Shri Ravindrasinh N Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Years

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

rectification application u/s 154 of the Act preferred by the assessee. In the penalty proceeding, on the basis of such peak balance of Rs.8,95,166/- penalty of Rs.3,15,890/- was levied, which was in turn confirmed by the Learned CIT(A). Hence, instant appeal before us. ITA Nos.3343 & 3344/Ahd/2015 Shri Ravindrasinh N Gohil vs. ITO Asst.Years

SHIVAM PRERNA INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied by the Ld. AO U/S 271(1)(b) of the Act of Rs.30,000/- for vague non-compliance of notices issued U/S 142(1) of the Act I.T.A No. 1431/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 4 Shivam Prerna Infrabuild vs. ITO 7. The appellant Craves liberty to add, amend, alter or modify all or any grounds

CHAROTAR GAS SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY. CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

271(1)(c) on 08-02-2018. The assessee filed his submissions on 28-02-2018. The Assessing Officer passed penalty 2 I.T.A No. 247/Ahd/2025 Charotar Gas Sahkari Mandali Ltd., A.Y. 2012-13 order dated 30-08-2018 thereby levying the penalty of Rs. 34,59,573/- which is equal to the 100% of tax in respect of income

ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABAD vs. AIA ENGINEERING LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 397/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Dcit Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J आयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 532/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 बनाम Aia Engineering Limited, Acit, Vs. 115, Gvmm Estate, Odhav Road, Circle-1(1)(1), Odhav, Ahmedabad-382415 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabca 2777 J अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Pratik Sharma, Sr Dr & Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09.10.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21.10.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

154 dt. 06.02.2020) on electrical fittings u/s 32 of the Act?" 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored". 3. At the outset itself

THE SHUKLATIRTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 4. The assessee is a co-operative credit society. For the year under consideration

THE SHUKLATIRTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is unjustified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 4. The assessee is a co-operative credit society. For the year under consideration

JAP AGRO FOODS PVT. LTD,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) PREVIOUSLY ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

154 read with section 254 on 24.02.2025 to correctly give effect to the Tribunal’s order in the quantum appeal. The assessee has further placed on record that it had filed an application for rectification of the order giving effect to the CIT(A) order on 27.02.2025, and till the date of filing of the present appeal, no order

MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified.” 7. 2. The Ground Nos. 1, 2 & 3 relate to the upward adjustment of Rs. 27,11,550/- in respect of transaction of sale of pesticides and pigments were not pressed by the Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee at the time of hearing of the matter

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act in respect of each of the additions made by him in the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C, on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, clearly ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case

M/S. MATRIX COMSEC PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs.1,12,84,050/-]” 6. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. While confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, learned CIT(A) observed as follows :- “6.3.5. When

M/S. MATRIX COMSEC PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, ITA No.2907/Ahd/2013 is allowed

Bench: Him, But When It Was Pointed Out To The Learned Cit(A), He Disposed Of The Same, By A Subsequent Order Dated 3Rd October, 2013, Which Is Separately In Appeal Before Us. He Submits That, In View Of This Subsequent Development, Ground No.3 Is Not Required To Be Adjudicated In This Appeal. Learned Departmental Representative Does Not Oppose The Submissions So Made By The Learned Counsel. We, Therefore, Dismiss Ground No.3 As Infructuous.

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Addition: Rs.1,12,84,050/-]” 6. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) but without any success. While confirming the action of the Assessing Officer, learned CIT(A) observed as follows :- “6.3.5. When

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO,WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nVs Gandhinagar\n(Respondent)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\nDate of hearing\n: 19-03-2025\nDate of

271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') relating\nto the Assessment Year 2008-09.\n2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 1607 days in filing\nITA No.194/Ahd/2021 and delay of 2513 days in filing ITA No.\n190/Ahd/2024.\n3. At the outset, Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted

BIREN DHIRAJLAL SHAH,GANDHINAGAR vs. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No: 194/Ahd/2021 &\nITA No: 190/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year: 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah\nPlot No. 441-1, Sector-22\nNr. Police Chowkey,\nGandhinagar-382021\nPAN: ACSPS5653F\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Chetan Agarwal, A.R. &\nMs. Krupa Panchal, CA\nRevenue Represented:\nDate of hearing\nDate of pronouncement\nShri Alpesh Parmar, Sr. D.R.\n: 19-03-2025\n: 03-04-2025\nIncome Tax Officer,\nWard-1,\nV

271(1)(c) of the\nIncome Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act') relating\nto the Assessment Year 2008-09.\nI.T.A No. 194/Ahd/2021 & ITA 190/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2008-09\nBiren Dhirajlal Shah vs. ITO\nPage No 2\n2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 1607 days in filing\nITA No.194/Ahd/2021 and delay of 2513 days