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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First

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 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Years as mentioned in the cause title. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are identical, we proceed to dispose of all the appeals by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity. First

M/S. GURUPRASAD INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1658-1659/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2010-2011 & 2011-12 M/S. Guruprasad Infrastructure D.C.I.T, Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Central Circle-1, 9, Shei Ram Nagar, B/H Rto, Baroda. Warasia Colony, Vadodara-390006. Pan: Aadcg6787C

u/s 271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation 5A are squarely covered by now SC-approved Kolkatta High Court Judgment in Prasanna Dugar 59 taxmann.com 99 (Cal) (2015), may quote: ".......3. A search was conducted on February 3, 2009. During the search, the assessee disclosed certain facts which have been recorded in the order of the appellate authority which reads as follows

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty as the disclosure of income by assessee is covered under both expressions i.e. concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particular of income as both expressions ultimately lead to under

CREELOTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

search & seizure action u/s 132(1) of the I.T. Act is Rs.99,00,000/-.The same amount is offered by the company "as income from other sources by filling return of income U/s 153A. Since the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of his income and thereby has concealed his income, penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and law on the issue. The action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed. I.T.A Nos. 85 & 87/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

search resulted in seizure of incriminating material from assessee’s car. The AO also noted that the assessee despite seizure of such incriminating documents did not file return of income u/s 153A of the Act, in time, and only after several notices, filed the return of income on 28.12.2006 declaring total income as detailed in the table above for respective

PARAG V. CHUGH,,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act to the returned income under section 153A of the Act, and therefore appellant cannot be treated to be assessee concealing income. 1.02 Your appellant prays to hold so now and delete the impugned penalty. 2.00 YOUR APPELLANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND /OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND(S) TAKE HEREINABOVE

PARAG V. CHUGH,,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act to the returned income under section 153A of the Act, and therefore appellant cannot be treated to be assessee concealing income. 1.02 Your appellant prays to hold so now and delete the impugned penalty. 2.00 YOUR APPELLANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND /OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND(S) TAKE HEREINABOVE

SMT. SUCHITRA S. DHANANI,,INDORE vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

search and seizure action u/s 132 of the I T Act was carried out at the residence as well as the business premises of (Dhanani Group) on 11-02-2011. Accordingly, notices u/s l53A(a) the return of income was issued to the appellant. The return of income was furnished on 13.2.2013 declaring total income

SHRI PRAHLAD S. MEHTA L/H OF LATE RAJPAL P. MEHTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(3) NOW WARD-5(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, this ground of appeal is dismissed

Penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) may please be cancelled and notice be vacated. (v) Such other relief or reduction as the facts and circumstances of the case so require be granted.” 4. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. 2,92,496/- was filed on 1st Nov, 2004. Information was received on the basis

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents and digital data relating to Smt. Avani D. Shah were found at the premises of Shri Harsh Dipak Shah and M/s. Avani Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Based on the seized material

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents and digital data relating to Smt. Avani D. Shah were found at the premises of Shri Harsh Dipak Shah and M/s. Avani Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Based on the seized material

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 23.01.2020 in the case of Avani Group of Vadodara, during which certain incriminating documents and digital data relating to Smt. Avani D. Shah were found at the premises of Shri Harsh Dipak Shah and M/s. Avani Petrochem Pvt. Ltd. Based on the seized material

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

271(1)(b) was levied on November 27, 2012. The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the CIT (A) on May 9, 2013, for failure to comply fully with the notices. The assessee's non-cooperative attitude led to the case being referred for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2. At the outset itself it was stated that the issue for\nadjudication in the appeals filed by the two assessees was common\nand identical arising from assessment framed on them u/s 153C\nr.w.s 153A of the Act on account of additions made to their incomes\nfrom documents found during search action undertaken u/s

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2. At the outset itself it was stated that the issue\nfor\nadjudication in the appeals filed by the two assessees was common\nand identical arising from assessment framed on them u/s 153C\nr.w.s 153A of the Act on account of additions made to their incomes\nfrom documents found during search action undertaken u/s