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.

revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 22,09,350/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought

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.

revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 22,09,350/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought

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.

revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty of Rs. 22,09,350/- being 100% of the amount of tax sought

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

271(1)(c) dated 29/03/2022, which is out of the preview of\nsection 263 of the Income Tax Act, and therefore the order passed u/s 263\nrequires to be quashed.\n5. The Commissioner has failed to appreciate that the order of assessment\ndated 29-03-2022, and penalty initiated u/s 271AAC(1) of the IT Act, 1961\nare

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

u/s. 263 of the Act by giving effect to the quantum order. For ready reference section 275 [1A] is reproduced as under: I.T.A No. 858/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 7 DCIT Vs. Pinac Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. “… [(1-A) In a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal

KEPLER HEALTHCARE PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year : 2018-19 Kepler Healthcare Private Limited, The Pr. Commissioner Of C/O. M S Chhajed & Co., Ca, Vs Income Tax-1, Ahmedabad “Kamal Shanti, Nr. Sardar Patel Statute, Ahmedabad-380014 Pan : Aafck 1130 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.S. Chhajed, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 12/06/2024

263 of the Act. 8. The ld. PCIT has observed that the distribution of gifts, bags and other articles were in the nature of gifts and were required to be disallowed at 100% of such expenses; whereas the Assessing Officer had disallowed only 10% of the expense. No cogent reason has been given by the ld. PCIT

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 263 as well as consequential orders passed subsequent to revision proceeding are Null and VOID and deserves to be quashed and set aside. The same please be held accordingly. 5. The order passed by the learned CIT (Appeals) is bad in law and contrary to the provisions of law and facts. It is submitted that the same

SHRI AMIN IBRAHIM JAKA,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE CIT, A,ABAD-VI, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s ITA Nos. 1215/Ahd/2014 & 2863/Ahd/2014 Shri Amin Ibrahim Jaka vs. ACIT/CIT(A) Asst. Year –2006-07 - 3– 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, in both appeals common facts and issues are involved, both appeals filed by the assessee are being taken up together. We observe that despite large number of opportunities of hearing, the assessee has remained

SHRI AMIN IBRAHIM JAKA,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2,, BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s ITA Nos. 1215/Ahd/2014 & 2863/Ahd/2014 Shri Amin Ibrahim Jaka vs. ACIT/CIT(A) Asst. Year –2006-07 - 3– 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, in both appeals common facts and issues are involved, both appeals filed by the assessee are being taken up together. We observe that despite large number of opportunities of hearing, the assessee has remained

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

THE CO. OP. CRE SOC. OF VIS LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 786/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 The Co.op Credit Society of VIS Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

ADANI GREEN ENERGY LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1002/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Adani Green Energy Limited The Principal Cit Adani Corporate House बनाम/ Ahmedabad-1 Shantigram 15, S.G. Highway V/S. Near Vaishno Devi Circle Khodiyar B.O., Khodiyar Ahmedabad – 382 421 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanca 1814 G (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi, A.R. Revenue By : Shri H. Phani Raju, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/09/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/09/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Passed By The Ld.Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ahmedabad-1 (Hereinafter Referred To As "Pcit") Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Dated 16-03-2024, For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Adani Green Energy Limited Vs. Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

revised. In response to the same, the assessee challenged the jurisdiction assumed by the Ld.PCIT u/s.263 of the Act. The Ld.PCIT passed an order u/s 263 of the Act dated 16-03-2024 as the assessee did not submit anything on the merit of the issue but argued on the legal aspect of the proceeding u/s.263

LATE ASHVINBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SMIT ASHVINBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

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

u/s 69 under section 69A OF THE Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of sums deposited in bank account and Fixed deposits in names of family members to which section 69A did not apply. There is thus no case for levying penalty on account of erroneous addition of deemed income. It be so held now. 3. The ld NFAC/CIT

LATE ASHVINBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SMIT ASHVINBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

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

u/s 69 under section 69A OF THE Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of sums deposited in bank account and Fixed deposits in names of family members to which section 69A did not apply. There is thus no case for levying penalty on account of erroneous addition of deemed income. It be so held now. 3. The ld NFAC/CIT

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

263 (revision of orders).\"\nThus, a new claim of deduction cannot be made by the assessee when notice u/s 153A is issued.\ng) Another question is "Whether returned/assessed income can be reduced u/s 153A/153C?\"\nThe object and purpose of section, 132 is to conduct search and thereby detect and unearth\nundisclosed income / asset/documents etc. and bring them

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” Revenues’s appeal ITA No.2855/A/2016: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs.5,98,26,995/- out of total addition of Rs.6,78,33,882/- made on account of undisclosed income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

M/S. ATRI DEVELOPERS,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(3),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 The Dcit, Cir.3(3) M/S.Atri Developers Ahmedabad. Vs 19, Ambalal House Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D Assessment Year : 2013-14 M/S.Atri Developers The Dcit, Cir.3(3) 19, Ambalal House Vs Ahmedabad. Mayur Park Society Satellite Road Ahmedabad. Pan : Aatfa 1086 D

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” Revenues’s appeal ITA No.2855/A/2016: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the relief of Rs.5,98,26,995/- out of total addition of Rs.6,78,33,882/- made on account of undisclosed income. 1.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. 7.0. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal