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 Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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 unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

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, proceedings under section 153C were initiated

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

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, proceedings under section 153C were initiated

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

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, proceedings under section 153C were initiated

AMISH PRAVINCHANDRA VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

penalty order levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is an individual having salary income. There was a search action u/s. 132

ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY./JT.CIT., (OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 132 was carried out in the Asian Group of cases on 07.02.2008. Consequently notices u/s.153A were issued and in response, the assessee filed its Returns of Income on 29.06.2009 declaring total income of Rs.14,84,23,270/-. Assessment came to be completed by passing u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2009 determining the total income

ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY./JT.CIT., (OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 132 was carried out in the Asian Group of cases on 07.02.2008. Consequently notices u/s.153A were issued and in response, the assessee filed its Returns of Income on 29.06.2009 declaring total income of Rs.14,84,23,270/-. Assessment came to be completed by passing u/s.153A r.w.s.143(3) of the Act vide order dated 31.12.2009 determining the total income

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)

132(2) of the Act was conducted on the assessee on 09-02-05 and various documents/books of account /other valuable articles/ other things were found and seized. Consequently, assessment was completed u/s.153A(b) r.w.s. 144 of the Act. On 28.12.2006 determining total income of Rs.2,97,42,657/- as against income Rs. 10,23,030/-disclosed in the return

SUJAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271