SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

penalty proceeding under Section 271(l)(c) and that the AO did not make sufficient inquiry about the deposits made in the bank account in as much as AO had access to all records of assessee, and after perusing said records, he framed assessment, said assessment could not be re-opened in exercise of revision power under section 263

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)

Revision proceedings cannot be invoked, solely for the reasons that penalty proceedings initiated on a wrong penalty proceedings. Whereas in this case, the Ld. A.O. has consciously and correctly invoked Section 271AAC(1) in the reassessment order, however wrongly issued penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion, the revisionary jurisdiction

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

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

revision proceedings u/s. 263 of the, therefore, for the sake of convenience, the same are being adjudicated together. 3 The brief fact of the case is that the assessee has a filed return of income for assessment year 2013-14 on 30-11-2013 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,35,18,193/-. The assessee company has shown book

MARDIA COPPER EXTRUTIONS PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 229/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 1990-1991 M/S Mardia Copper Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T, C/O Mehta Lodha & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), 105, Sakar-I, Near Gandhigram Railway Ahmedabad. Station, Off Ashram Road, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aabcm3848G

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act at Rs. 16,66,271/- only being 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 3. The aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) reiterated the submission as before the AO. Page 4 of 11 Asstt. Year

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

SMT. SONAL D. MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(5), (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CIRCLE-7),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain as against the business income treated

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. SONAL D. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain as against the business income treated

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. RAKSHABEN S. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain as against the business income treated

SMT. USHABEN P. MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), (ERSTWHILE ACIT, CIRCLE-7),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain as against the business income treated

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7,, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. USHABEN P. MEHTA,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain as against the business income treated

SMT. RAKSHABEN S. MEHTA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2), ( ERSTWHILE ACIT, CIRCLE-7),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessees are allowed consequently the Revenue appeals are dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (l)(c) is unjustified ITA N. 1858/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2005-06 (Revenue’s appeal ) 1. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in directing to treat the profit from sales of shares of Rs.7,24,24,241/- as long term capital gain as against the business income treated