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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

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

reopened after four years, the assessee firm filed the return and thereon the I.T.A No. 840/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2018-19 7 Mahaveer Singh Vs. PCIT assessing officer failed to invoke penalty u/s. 270A(2)(b) of the Act, whereby the Revision order was quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal. But here in the present case, the assessee neither

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11. I.T.A No. 9/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 DCIT vs. M/s. KGN Industries Ltd. 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in Trading

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

reopen and/or assess the return with respect to six preceding years; however, there must be some incriminating material available with the Assessing Officer with respect to the sale transactions in the particular assessment year 20. For the foregoing reasons, it is not possible to state that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from any legal infirmity

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

reopened u/s 147 of the Act and assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 27-12-2013 determining the total income at Rs. I.T.A No. 2622/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No. 3 Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel vs. ACIT 33,26,050/-. Subsequently, the ld. CIT(A) -7 Ahmedabad passed order u/s

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer and the assessment order thereof. We order accordingly. Since the assessment proceeding itself has been quashed the other issues raised in the appeal by the appellant rendered infructuous and no order need be passed. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. ITA No.3344/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09: Since there

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

reopening of assessment made by the Assessing Officer and the assessment order thereof. We order accordingly. Since the assessment proceeding itself has been quashed the other issues raised in the appeal by the appellant rendered infructuous and no order need be passed. 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed. ITA No.3344/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09: Since there