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

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and the legislature had acknowledged this position by inserting explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) categorically providing for specific situation of non-filing of return of income which alone would attract the levy of penalty. Ld.counsel for the I.T.A No. 1731/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 5 Jitendra P. Vaghela

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty order dated 14.08.2014 issued by the DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “The Act”) for the Assessment Year 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee initially purchased

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act as the case is covered by the exceptions as contained in the explanation 1(B) to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. In our view, the facts of the above case-laws are applicable to assessee’s set of facts as well. The assessee’s interest income was subject

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)

Section 271AAC(1) in the reassessment order, however wrongly issued penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion, the revisionary jurisdiction invoked u/s. 263 by directing the Assessing Officer to issue correct penalty notice by modifying the reassessment order is well within the provisions of law, which does not require any interference

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

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

section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 153A of the Act for imposing the penalty, the return filed u/s 139 of the Act, needs

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

139(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the assessee has already disclosed the impugned amount of income of Rs. 11,87,02,925/- in response to the notice issued under Section 153-A of the Act. Therefore, on the same amount of income, there cannot be levied any penalty under the provisions of section 271(1

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

271(1)(c) by the Assessing Officer is hereby restored. 6. This view of ours is further supported by producing the penalty order dated 18.06.2015 passed u/s. 271F by the Assessing Officer wherein he has levied a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- for not filing the Return of Income as per the Section 139

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. SHRI AMITKUMAR RAMNIKLAL TILVA, BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1073/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 Shri Amit Ramniklal Tilva, J.C.I.T., 401, Kishan Heights, Vs. Circle-21, Near Deco World, Baroda. Opp. Akota Stadium, Baroda. Pan: Adnpt9775H & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1409/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2016-2017 D.C.I.T., Shri Amit Ramniklal Tilva, Circle-2, Vs. 401, Kishan Heights, Baroda. Near Deco World, Opp. Akota Stadium, Baroda. Pan: Adnpt9775H

U/s. 271(1)(C) of the Act of the 1,38,500/-. 2. Both the lower authorities have erred in law and on facts & circumstances of the appellant's case in not appreciating the fact that no penalty U/s.271(1)(C) of the Act can be levied. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify