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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FALGUNI SURYAKANT THAKAR , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

penalty order dated 27-06-2022 under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Aggrieved against the order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) challenging the jurisdiction of assessment relating to the Asst. Year 2009-10. The Ld. CIT(A) by a detailed order held that the initiation of proceedings u/s. 153C

THE UNITED BUILDERS CORPORATION ,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2. At the outset itself it was stated that the issue\nfor\nadjudication in the appeals filed by the two assessees was common\nand identical arising from assessment framed on them u/s 153C\nr.w.s 153A of the Act on account of additions made to their incomes\nfrom documents found during search action undertaken u/s

THE MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-2(1)(4), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2. At the outset itself it was stated that the issue for\nadjudication in the appeals filed by the two assessees was common\nand identical arising from assessment framed on them u/s 153C\nr.w.s 153A of the Act on account of additions made to their incomes\nfrom documents found during search action undertaken u/s

MODERN CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

271(1)(c) of the Act.\n2. At the outset itself it was stated that the issue for\nadjudication in the appeals filed by the two assessees was common\nand identical arising from assessment framed on them u/s 153C\nr.w.s 153A of the Act on account of additions made to their incomes\nfrom documents found during search action undertaken u/s

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C of the Act has been issued to the assessee, then the assessee is under an obligation to file return of income and failure / omission on the part of the assessee to file return of income would attract penalty under section 271F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 11. Before

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C of the Act has been issued to the assessee, then the assessee is under an obligation to file return of income and failure / omission on the part of the assessee to file return of income would attract penalty under section 271F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 11. Before

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

153C of the Act has been issued to the assessee, then the assessee is under an obligation to file return of income and failure / omission on the part of the assessee to file return of income would attract penalty under section 271F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 11. Before

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

153C r.w.s. 153A(1)(a) of the Act was issued to the assessee on 27.02.2015. The penalty provisions act independently and while invoking the penalty u/s 271(1)(c), both the limbs can be invoked jointly or separately with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but while invoking Section