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

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

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

reopened for understatement of sale consideration of Rs.\n66,63,250/- on purchase of residential villa at ‘Kalhaar Blues and\nGreens' project which has escaped assessment and brought to tax.\nThus A.O. initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271AAC(1) of the Act\nin respect of addition made u/s.69A of the Act. However in the\nconcluding part of the reassessment order

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.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

assessment, commenced under invalid exercise of powers u/s 147 of the Act. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of reopening is without jurisdiction and not permissible either in law or on fact. The present proceedings, therefore, are required to be quashed being bad in law. 2. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeals) has erred in fact

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 10,043/-, vide penalty order dated 07.01.2022 in DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2021- 22/1038512707(1). 2. First, I will take the appeal of the assessee in ITA nio. 85/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 10,043/-, vide penalty order dated 07.01.2022 in DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2021- 22/1038512707(1). 2. First, I will take the appeal of the assessee in ITA nio. 85/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Assessing Officer grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271(l)(b): 18) Notice u/s 142(1) requires clarification of the source of the depositing amount in the bank account of Rs.3613600/-. for the same which is shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Assessing Officer grossly erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271(l)(b): 18) Notice u/s 142(1) requires clarification of the source of the depositing amount in the bank account of Rs.3613600/-. for the same which is shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s

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