SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The assessing officer stated that during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A which was conducted on the assessee as well as on SPI on 14.07.2006, the appellant had made disclosure with respect to addition of provision of doubtful debts and advance of Rs.94,71,966/- in working

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

271 (1)(c) as under: Explanation 3.—Where any person fails, without reasonable cause, to furnish within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section 153 a return of his income which he is required to furnish under section 139 in respect of any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1989, and until

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

u/s. 54G of the Act against the transfer of agriculture land, which was not notified for the purpose of Section 54G of the Act. Thus the deduction claimed under section 54G of the Act is contrary to the provisions of law. In the given facts & circumstances the assessee cannot take the shelter of the ignorance of the provisions

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

133A of the Act was conducted in the appellant's case on 06/08/2020 i.e. after the appellant filed the return of income on 31/07/2010. During the survey, the appellant accepted the amount to be his undisclosed income. This fact itself makes it clear that the appellant deliberately conceal this income by not showing in the return of income. Since

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

EARTH REALITY,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Earth Reality Dcit, Cir.1(1)(1) Earth-49, Vs Vadodara. Opp: Misuza Court Vasna Road, Vadodara 390 007 Pan : Aadfe 0069 N (Applicant) (Responent) Assessee By : Shri Hemant Suthar, Ar Revenue By : Ms.Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act, 1961 of Rs. 4,32,600/-. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that the appellant firm has disclosed an amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- for A.Y 2015- 16 during the survey proceedings and accordingly also paid advance tax of Rs. 4,50,000/- on 25/03/2015 and that

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. RADHIKA JEWELLERS, VADODARA

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

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

133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 19-10-2012. During the course of survey, the assessee admitted unaccounted income to the tune of Rs. 2,01,00,050/- on account of difference in stock of gold, silver ornaments, bullion as well as excess cash found. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VARIA ENGINEERING WORKS PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) can be imposed on the appellant company. The same is, therefore, directed to be deleted and the appeal is allowed.” ACIT vs.VariaEngg Works Pvt Ltd AY : 2008-09 - 3– 5. Aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before us. 6. At the time of hearing before us, learned

BHOMKA PLY & BOARD INDUSTRIES,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2,, ANAND

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.500/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Asstt Year :2008-09)

133A of the Income Tax Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee on 29.02.2008 and certain books of accounts and loose papers were impounded. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act followed by notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was duly served to assessee along with a detailed

SHRI RASIKBHAI C. PATEL,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty of Rs. 3,35,126/-, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 2029/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 Page No 2 Shri Rasikbhai C. Patel vs. ITO 2. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. 78,712/- was filed on 4th August, 2003. Thereafter, assessment u/s

SIDDHRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1041/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10

133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. According to the AO, the assessee has disclosed an amount of Rs.11.50 lakhs voluntarily towards unaccounted receipts for accounting year 2008-09 in addition to its regular income. The ld.AO further observed that in the return filed on 29.9.2009 for A.Y.2009-10 it had offered Rs.8.50 lakhs instead of admitted

RBZ JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively both for Assessment Year 2010-11. ITA Nos.1273/Ahd/2014 & 3402/Ahd/2016 RBZ Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2010-11 Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee and interconnected, we have heard these two matters analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2014

RBZ JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 271(1)(c) of the Act respectively both for Assessment Year 2010-11. ITA Nos.1273/Ahd/2014 & 3402/Ahd/2016 RBZ Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2010-11 Since both the appeals relate to the same assessee and interconnected, we have heard these two matters analogously and are being disposed of by a common order. ITA No. 1273/Ahd/2014

ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA vs. M/S. MISSION CORPORATION,, BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2096/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015 Income Tax Officer, M/S. Mission Corporation, Ward-3(1)(2), Vs. 106, K.P. Shopping Centre, Vadodara. Karelibaug, Vadodara.

133A dated 25-03-2014 was carried out in case of “Mangala Group” in which assessee firm was also covered. During the survey proceeding one of the partner of the assessee firm namely Shri Manish K Patel while recording statement under section 131(1A) admitted to offer an undisclosed income of Rs. 10 Crores. In Consequence the assessee firm

SHRI TUSHAR HASMUKHBHAI SONI,,PETLAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It be held so now and penalty levied by the CIT (A) be deleted. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty on disclosed income of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Your appellant submits that the penalty levied is unjust and uncalled and therefore be deleted

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

penalty under section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when additions are made on estimate basis without any cogent material or findings on record that assessee concealed the income or provided inaccurate particulars of income.”\ All the above mentioned three grounds of appeal are interconnected to the same issue therefore they are adjudicated together as below. 3. In this case

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

133A), which mandates that the contents of such impounded documents are to be presumed to be true. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts by invoking and travelling to the provisions of section 34 of the Evidence Act (which is with respect to the entries in books of accounts) when the relevant section