SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

M/S. THE EMERALD INFRA,VADODARA vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble

penalty proceedings U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 4. 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 hearing of the appeal.” 3. The assessee firm filed its return of income on 27.06.2017 declaring total income

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

section 153A of the Act is to be treated as return\nfiled under section 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee\nhas borrowed this proposition to contend that accordingly fresh\nclaims can be made in returns filed u/s 153A of the Act. But, we find,\nthat these decisions have been rendered while addressing completely\ndifferent issue, relating