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 ROHITJI 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 VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

b) of the Act assessing the same income as returned by the assessee without any variation. It was further contended that during the search, no documents pertaining to the additional income was found/seized. Penalty proceedings have been initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. He submitted that as the is covered by the following decisions

RAVJIBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

b) of the Act assessing the same income as returned by the assessee without any variation. It was further contended that during the search, no documents pertaining to the additional income was found/seized. Penalty proceedings have been initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. He submitted that as the is covered by the following decisions

SHRI SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

b) of the Act assessing the same income as returned by the assessee without any variation. It was further contended that during the search, no documents pertaining to the additional income was found/seized. Penalty proceedings have been initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. He submitted that as the is covered by the following decisions

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

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice- & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ It(Ss)A No. 45 & Ita No.204/Ahd/2020 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 Rohitji Chanduji Thakore Dcit, Cent.Cir.2(1) Chandanami Nivas Vs Ahmedabad. Thakor Vas, Ambali Gam Ahmedabad. Pan : Adtpt 4435 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Adv Parimal Singh B. Parmar, Ar Shri Vijay Govani, Ar Revenue By : Shri Virendra Ojha, Cit-Dr

penalty proceedings initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. IT(SS)A.No.45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No.1188 /Ahd/2019 3. Registry has pointed out that ITA No.45/Ahd/2020 is time barred by 132 days whereas ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 is time barred by 282 days. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay in the form of an affidavit, which

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act in respect of each of the additions made by him in the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) r.w.s. 254. The appellant prays that leave may be granted to add, amend or alter any of the grounds at any time before the final hearing of the appeal