SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

SHRI NIRAL KRUPESH PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(3), BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act)” 2. The learned AO erred in fact in law in levying penalty without specifying the charge (i.e whether for inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of particular of income) of penalty. 3. Your appellant craves the right to add to alter, amend , substitute, delete or modify

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

penalty 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

SHRI HIMANSHU PRAFULCHANDRA VARIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

u/s. 271(1)(c ) is justified. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Prasanna Dugar v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2016) 70 taxmann.com 175(SC) in its order dated May 1, 2015 decided. " Section 271(1)(c ) , read with section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - for concealment of income - Assessment year 2008-09 - In course

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

131/- which includes opening balance of Rs. 4,15,66,015/-, thus the difference on account of current year transaction was of Rs. 4,09,82,116/- only. The entire amount of difference on account of current year transaction was treated by the AO as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act Whereas the learned CIT-A held

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

131/- 4. Assessed u/s. 153A of the I T Act, 1961. Charge tax. Charge interest u/s. 234A, 234B and 234C of the I T Act, if any. Give credit for prepaid taxes after due verification. Demand notice and challan issued accordingly. Issue notice u/s. 271(1)(c)of the IT Act.” 11. We have perused the penalty order also. There