MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

133 ITR 7 has been followed. In view of these facts read with above decisions it is respectfully submitted that the order passed by the A.O. and on account of non initiation of penalty u/s 270A it does not become prejudicial and erroneous to the interest of the revenue and there is no question of income of Rs. 1

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned two appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda, arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned two appeals have been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Baroda, arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after referred

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), passed for Assessment Year 2014-15 deleting the levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 28.08.2019 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred

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

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 20.12.2023 & 18.12.2023 passed for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. At the outset, we observe that there

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

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: These are appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 20.12.2023 & 18.12.2023 passed for A.Y. 2011-12. 2. At the outset, we observe that there

SH. BHAVESHKUMAR GANSHYAM PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] arising out of penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D of the Act. 7) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D of the Act. 7) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D of the Act. 7) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before

MAYANKKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA BHATT,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

D E R आदेश आदेश PER MAKARAND V.MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.05.2024 passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”], for the Assessment Year

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) and summons u/s 131 were issued to top 200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) and summons u/s 131 were issued to top 200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) and summons u/s 131 were issued to top 200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) and summons u/s 131 were issued to top 200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

133(6) and summons u/s 131 were issued to top 200 cases, but most of the notices returned unserved. Even cases where notices were served, compliances were made in only 3 ca.ses and they too could not prove their credit-worthiness. No one appeared to depose for recording of statements. Their credit-worthiness could not be established from the records

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNALI BIREN SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed the Cross

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal has been filed by the Department and the Cross Objection has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 14.07.2025 passed

JAGDISHKUMAR AMRUTLAL THAKAR,PATAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER- WARD -3, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: These appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide orders dated 28.11.2022 & 13.02.2025 passed for A.Y. 2010-11. Since common facts and issues are involved for both