DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 AA of the Act We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld" …………………. 5.8.2. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case Income-Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), Chennai V. Generating Co. (P.) Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 482-ITAT Chennai IT Appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 AA of the Act We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld" …………………. 5.8.2. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case Income-Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), Chennai V. Generating Co. (P.) Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 482-ITAT Chennai IT Appeal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 AA of the Act We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) and the same is upheld" …………………. 5.8.2. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case Income-Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), Chennai V. Generating Co. (P.) Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 482-ITAT Chennai IT Appeal

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 AA of\nthe Act We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.\nCIT(A) and the same is upheld\"\n\n5. 8. 2. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case\nIncome-Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), Chennai V.\nGenerating Co. (P.) Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 482-ITAT Chennai

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 AA of\nthe Act We, therefore do not find any infirmity in the order of Ld.\nCIT(A) and the same is upheld\"\n5. 8. 2. The decision of the Hon'ble ITAT Chennai in the case\nIncome-Tax Officer (OSD), Company Circle V (2), Chennai V.\nGenerating Co. (P.) Ltd. 2011 (10) TMI 482-ITAT Chennai IT Appeal

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

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F: 20) AO has initiated the penalty

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

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F: 20) AO has initiated the penalty

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

127(Madras)J and Ahmedabad ITAT in case of GE India Industries Pvt. Ltd (33 Taxman.com 15), passing an order in present case is illegal and void-ab-initio. 2. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The said assessment order was passed on 31.12.2009. 5. The assessee filed appeal against aforesaid assessment order of Ld. Assessing Officer on 05.01.2017, after gap of over seven years. The Ld. CIT(A), in order to verify the correct date of service of order (passed under

BABUBHAI PUNMAJI GEHLOT,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. The said assessment order was passed on 31.12.2009. 5. The assessee filed appeal against aforesaid assessment order of Ld. Assessing Officer on 05.01.2017, after gap of over seven years. The Ld. CIT(A), in order to verify the correct date of service of order (passed under

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the confirmation of two other disallowances sustained by the CIT(A). Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical products and development of pharmaceutical formulation technologies. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

u/s 143(3) of the Act,\nwhereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the\nconfirmation of two other disallowances sustained by the CIT(A).\nFacts of the Case\n2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and\ntrading of pharmaceutical products and development of pharmaceutical\nformulation technologies. For the year under consideration, the assessee\nfiled

VEENITA ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member)

u/s 133 (6) of the Act to this party at the address furnished by the assessee calling for relevant details, however, the same was returned by the postal authorities. Therefore, the assessee was asked to produce the party or any authorized person on behalf of this party, which was also not complied with. As mentioned above, the AO gave