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

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

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

u/s. 143(3) rws 254 if tge UT Act was received determining total incomers.303060/-. 2. Previously for this assessment year, total income was determined at loss Rs.11040/- 3. At the time of passing this order on 23/12/16, addition ofRs.31500/- has been made. This addition is on account of two cheques as under: 50000/- 01/04/1998 paid to Everest Services 265000/- 03/04/1998

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

u/s. 143(3) rws 254 if tge UT Act was received determining total incomers.303060/-. 2. Previously for this assessment year, total income was determined at loss Rs.11040/- 3. At the time of passing this order on 23/12/16, addition ofRs.31500/- has been made. This addition is on account of two cheques as under: 50000/- 01/04/1998 paid to Everest Services 265000/- 03/04/1998

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

SHRI JAYDEEPSINH VAJESINH DODIYA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. C.I.T., RANGE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is party allowed

271-D of the I.T. Act which has been levied by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 7(1), Ahmedabad, though the same is barred by time in view of the Provisions of Sec. 275(1)(c) are covered and not it pertains to Sec. 275(1)(a). 2. Without prejudice to the above

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