DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

271(1)(c) for concealment of income and also issued penalty notice u/s. 271F for not filing the Return of Income. It is not the case that the Assessing officer has not initiated u/s. 271F proceedings in assessee’s case. The I.T.A No. 9/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 6 DCIT vs. M/s. KGN Industries Ltd. assessee is a limited

M/S. ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

159 u/s 80HHC + 1,60,250 u/s 80G) and therefore liable for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6.1 The quantum of penalty works out as under : Minimum penalty @ 100% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs. 1,55,96,843/- Maximum penalty @ 300% of tax sought to be evaded : Rs. 4,67,90,529/- 7. Considering

LATE SHRI BAVANJI R. DHINGANI,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, VADODARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) and imposed penalty of Rs.1,05,500/-. It further appears that the Learned AO without any proper justification only on the basis of the income disclosed by the assessee imposed penalty. While doing so the Learned AO relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna Benches in the case of ACIT-vs-Nageshwar Prasad

LATE SHRI BAVANJI R. DHINGANI,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, VADODARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) and imposed penalty of Rs.1,05,500/-. It further appears that the Learned AO without any proper justification only on the basis of the income disclosed by the assessee imposed penalty. While doing so the Learned AO relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna Benches in the case of ACIT-vs-Nageshwar Prasad

LATE SHRI BAVANJI R. DHINGANI,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3),, VADODARA

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

271(1)(c) and imposed penalty of Rs.1,05,500/-. It further appears that the Learned AO without any proper justification only on the basis of the income disclosed by the assessee imposed penalty. While doing so the Learned AO relied on the judgment passed by the Hon’ble ITAT, Patna Benches in the case of ACIT-vs-Nageshwar Prasad

DUDHSAGAR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION,MEHSANA vs. THE DCIT(E) CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act under the limb furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ignoring fact that full details are submitted in assessment proceedings regarding corpus donation. 3. Ld. NFAC ought to have considered fact that non acceptance of bona fide claim does not lead to furnishing inaccurate particulars of income which leads to penalty. Dudhsagar Research

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. D.B. CORP. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore, penalty @100% the amount of tax sought to be evaded on account of filing of inaccurate particulars of income, which works out of Rs.1,03,66,151/- against the maximum penalty of Rs. 3,70,98,453/- on the assessee, was levied by the A.O. 2.5. On the other hand, the appellant

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section

LATE ASHVINBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SMIT ASHVINBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

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

u/s 69 under section 69A OF THE Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of sums deposited in bank account and Fixed deposits in names of family members to which section 69A did not apply. There is thus no case for levying penalty on account of erroneous addition of deemed income. It be so held now. 3. The ld NFAC/CIT

LATE ASHVINBHAI UMEDBHAI PATEL (DECEASED) BY LEGAL HEIR SMIT ASHVINBHAI PATEL,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, NADIAD

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

u/s 69 under section 69A OF THE Income tax Act, 1961 in respect of sums deposited in bank account and Fixed deposits in names of family members to which section 69A did not apply. There is thus no case for levying penalty on account of erroneous addition of deemed income. It be so held now. 3. The ld NFAC/CIT

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 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.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. 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.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

159 ITR 71 (SC). We also find support in our view from a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B.N . Panda, Dy. CIT[1993] 200 ITR 710." A.Y. 1994-95 We further find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decision

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

159 ITR 71 (SC). We also find support in our view from a Division Bench judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of India Finance and Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. B.N . Panda, Dy. CIT[1993] 200 ITR 710." A.Y. 1994-95 We further find that the order of ld. CIT(A) is in conformity with the decision

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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 dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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 dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted