PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

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

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 us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

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 us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

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

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 us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

BAKERI PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee on this ground are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

Penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is unjust, unreasonable and therefore, bad in law. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. Total Tax Effect

TECHNODOT ENGINEERS PVT. LTD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokari.T(Ss).A. Nos.147&148/Ahd/2019 (A.Ys.: 2005-06 & 2006-07) Smt. Neelu Sanjay Gupta, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of L/H. Of Late Shri Sanjay Gupta Income Tax, B-202, Dhananjay Tower, Central Circle-2(2), Anand Nagar Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380015 [Pan No.Adypg0351K] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) I.T(Ss).A. Nos.21 To 23/Ahd/2020 & 15/Ahd/2022 & Ita No. 93/Ahd/2020) (A.Ys.: 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2006-07 & 2010-11 To 2011-12) M/S. Technodot Engineers Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of C/O. Cambay Hotel & Resorts, Income Tax, Plot No. 22, 23, 24 Gidc, Central Circle-2(2), Sector-25, Gandhinagar-382010 Ahmedabad [Pan No.Aabct5392A] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

271(1)(b) was levied on November 27, 2012. The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the CIT (A) on May 9, 2013, for failure to comply fully with the notices. The assessee's non-cooperative attitude led to the case being referred for a special audit under Section 142(2A) of the Income

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

145(3) of the Act which empowers the A.O. to deduce the correctpeak profit of the business. (2) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,80,69,095/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

145(3) of the Act which empowers the A.O. to deduce the correctpeak profit of the business. (2) The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.1,80,69,095/- made by the A.O. by invoking the provisions of section 69C of the Act. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD vs. VISHAL EXPORTS OVERSEAS PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-2016 The Dcit, Cir.4(1)(2) Vishal Exports Overseas P.Ltd. Polytechnic Vs. 301, Sheetal Complex Ahmedabad. Mayur Colony Mithakali, Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacv 2354 D (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Vivek Chavda, Ar Assessee By : Shri Rignesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/08/2025

Penalty proceedings initiated u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 3. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that – - the assessee is engaged in imports, exports, trading, and generation of electricity. It has been in this line since inception, and the activities

SHIVAM BUILDERS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 317/Ahd/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16) िनधा"रण वष" Shivam Builders Private Deputy Commissioner Of बनाम/ बनाम बनाम बनाम Limited Income Tax Vs. 802, 8Th Floor, Rajvi Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad Arcade, Nr. Gurukul Drive In Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 380052 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccs0296D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Hem Chhajed, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri J L Bhatia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/04/2024 09/05/2024 Date Of Pronouncement O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 27.07.2022 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds In This Appeal:

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated on this issue for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 15. It is found from the above reasons as recorded by the AO that books of accounts were not rejected on flimsy ground. It is a settled principle that books of accounts maintained by the assessee must be supported

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated the entire amount as unexplained

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated the entire amount as unexplained

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated the entire amount as unexplained

INCOME TAX WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL HUF, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated the entire amount as unexplained

NIKULBHAI CHATURBHAI PATEL, HUF,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars. 5. In appeal, CIT(Appeals) noted that the Assessing Officer had added the entire amount under Section 68 of the Act without verifying whether all eight bank accounts actually belonged to the HUF and treated the entire amount as unexplained

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

145 taxmann.com 431 (Cal); ii) Pr.CIT Vs. PTC India Financial Services Ltd., (2023) 146 taxmann.com 174 (Del) iii) CIT Vs. Reliance Utilities & Power Ltd., 313 ITR 340 (Bom) 24. With respect to the disallowance of administrative expenses, solitary contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that the same be computed in terms of Rule

SHAIL Y PATEL,VADODARA vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREV. CIRCLE 1(3)), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2016-17

u/s. 234A/B/C of the Act. 10 The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Ld. AO in initiating penalty proceedings us. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 11 The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds