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

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

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 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

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

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE 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 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

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-:-

seizure of unaccounted cash of Rs. 19.37 crores(related to accommodation entries and commission earned thereon) alongwith incriminating digital as well as documentary evidences. Clandestine record of unaccounted cash, synchronized trading, providing bogus LTCG in various BSE listed scrips and transport of such cash through angadiyas was found to be maintained in secret Tally Data file with company name

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1, ANAND), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal either partially or completely.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that based on information available with the Assessing Officer, a search and seizure

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal either partially or completely.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that based on information available with the Assessing Officer, a search and seizure

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1, ANAND), VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend, modify, delete all or any of the grounds of appeal either partially or completely.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that based on information available with the Assessing Officer, a search and seizure

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FALGUNI SURYAKANT THAKAR , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

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

penalty order dated 27-06-2022 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the jurisdiction of assessment relating to the Asst. Year 2009-10. The Ld. CIT(A) by a detailed order held that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C for the Asst. Year

IMRAN YUNUSBHAI MALWAT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

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

seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961 conducted in the case of RUPPs group of Ahmedabad on 07.09.2022, it came to light that 23 registered unrecognized political parties, out of these 23 parties one is Party, had accepted accommodation entries in the guise of political donations from several individuals/entities, including the appellant. The search was conducted after credible

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Seizure action u/s 132 of the IT Act, 1961was carried out in case of the assessee M/s. Shri Renuka Mata Multi State Urban Co-operative Credit Society Ltd. (in short Society/SRMSCS) (PAN: AADAS7782D) on 26.05.2017 and subsequently the case was centralized with this charge. During the search, it was found that the huge money was deposited in the bank accounts