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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR filed the written submission as forwarded by the AO which reads as under: It is pertinent to mention that after receipt of the STR in the Investigation Directorate, enquiries were conducted by the investigation wing regarding the insurance policies

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

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER BENCH: The above seven appeals (six by assessee and one by Revenue) arise from respective orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’) for assessment years mentioned above. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. C1T (A) erred in law and on facts in holding that unaccounted profits derived

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

D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad dated 26.2.2018 passed for the Asstt.Year 2007-08. 2. Though the assessee has taken three grounds of appeal, but his grievance revolves around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming penalty of Rs.33

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c). 2. Facts of the case are as emanates from the assessment order: 3. The Baroda Cricket Association is registered trust vide Registration No. F/881/Baroda dated 04.11,1996 with Asstt. Charity Commissioner, Baroda. The assessee trust is registered u/s.!2AA of the I.T. Act vide order EXEMPTION/I 10-23-13/2000-01 dated