SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

154 is bad in law 1.1 The initiation of rectification proceedings u/s, ought to be set aside and order ought to be quashed. 2. The penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be deleted 3. Addition of provision for doubtful debts and advances while calculating book profits under section

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

section 271(1)(c) on 25.07.2014. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 to CIT(A) against above order dated 25.07.2014 on account of factual mistakes apparent from record. In consequence thereof, CIT(A) passed order u/s 154 of the Act on 17.10.2014. The assessee was aggrieved by the order dated 24.07.2014 vide which the penalty

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

271(1)(c) of the Act as discussed above fails. Accordingly, we are of the view that that there cannot be any penalty with respect to the quantum additions which have been deleted by the authorities whether on merit or on technical grounds. Thus, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is hereby allowed whereas ground

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

271(1)(c) of the Act as discussed above fails. Accordingly, we are of the view that that there cannot be any penalty with respect to the quantum additions which have been deleted by the authorities whether on merit or on technical grounds. Thus, the ground no. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is hereby allowed whereas ground

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

Section 132(4) of the Act in a general/casual manner as a result of search. 7.1. The assessee further submitted that there was no specific charge mentioned by the AO whether the penalty has been levied on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of the particulars of income. In the absence of any specific charge

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

154 Taxman 33 has held as under: It is equally well-settled that where a cause is consciously abandoned (as in the present case) the party seeking condonation has to show by cogent evidence sufficient cause in support of its claim of condonation. The onus is greater. One of the propositions of settled legal position is to ensure that

THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NASCENT INFO TECHNOLOGIES PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & M/S. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2828/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बनाम/ Ito M/S. Nascent Info Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Ward-3(1)(1), Vs. A-805, Sapath-Iv, Opp. Ahmedabad Karnavati Club, Ahmedabad- 380054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aac Cn3 670 J (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Santosh Karnani, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By: Mehul K. Patel, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing 13/02/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement 27/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed - Am:

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act would be decided based on following observations. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act,1961, penalty u/s.271(1)(c) can be imposed on two charges i.e. (1) concealment of particulars of income (2) furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The common factor in the above charge

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

154 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in partly rectifying the incorrect computation of penalty made by the Ld. AO. 3. Both the lower authorities have erred in quantifying the penalty amount which is erroneous and excessive. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

154 of the Act. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in partly rectifying the incorrect computation of penalty made by the Ld. AO. 3. Both the lower authorities have erred in quantifying the penalty amount which is erroneous and excessive. 4. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. Resultantly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2012 upon the assessee. In appeal, the issue of reopening was challenged by the assessee along with other grounds that such proceeding was wrongly initiated by the Assessing Officer. Further that, no reasons for such reopening has been provided

SHRI RAVINDRASINH N.GOHIL,,BHAVNAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE,WARD-1(1),, BHAVNAGAR

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 147 of the Act. Resultantly, the case was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 19.04.2012 upon the assessee. In appeal, the issue of reopening was challenged by the assessee along with other grounds that such proceeding was wrongly initiated by the Assessing Officer. Further that, no reasons for such reopening has been provided

SH. BHAVESHKUMAR GANSHYAM PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271(1)(c) were also initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thereafter, on receipt of DVO report dated 28.10.2021, the AO passed rectification order u/s 154 on 12.01.2022 wherein the FMV was determined at Rs.12,87,400/- (assessee’s 1/3rd share), and consequential long-term capital gain was recomputed at Rs.1,26,76,643/-, resulting in net additional income

ABDULMANNAN MOHAMMEDKASAM BASTAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act imposed by Ld. AO.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred substantial expenditure totaling to Rs. 19,96,363/- through several credit cards held by the assessee, during the impugned assessment year. The Assessing Officer observed that on examination of records

SHIVAM PRERNA INFRABUILD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for non-compliance to the statutory notices issued by the Assessing Officer. I.T.A No. 1431/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 Shivam Prerna Infrabuild vs. ITO 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assesse is a partnership firm engaged in the business

CHAROTAR GAS SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY. CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of the appellant for AY 2012-13. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add/alter or amend any of the ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 11-09-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 16,72,93,060/-. The case was selected for scrutiny I.T.A

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under