DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains or furnishes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains or furnishes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an international transaction or specified domestic transaction, - (i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as required by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920, (ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or (iii) maintains or furnishes

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an\ninternational transaction or specified domestic transaction, -\n\n(i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as\nrequired by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920,\n(ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, Judicial Member\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271 or section 271BA if any person in respect of an\ninternational transaction or specified domestic transaction, -\n(i) fails to keep and maintain any such information and document as\nrequired by sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 920,\n(ii) fails to report such transaction which he is required to do so, or\n(iii) maintains

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

160/- determined as per assessment u/s ITA Nos.584, 585 and 586/Ahd/2023 Chhaya Vikas Shah Legal Heir & Wife of Late Vikas Shah vs. Dy.CIT Asst. Years : 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 3 153A(b) r.w.s.144 of the Act in Rs. Total Additions 27,84,533/- 11,83,041/- 9,56,596/- confirmed by Tribunal in Rs. - Income

THE ITO, (EXEMPTIONS), WARD-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. THE GUJARAT INSTITUTE OF HOUSING & ESTATE DEVELOPERS,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Department is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

160 taxmann.com 237 (Delhi Tribunal) wherein it was held that since the fact has been duly disclosed by the assessee in it’s accounts and it’s original return with full details, no penalty can be levied on the assessee. Therefore, this is case where there is no concealment of income or furnishing any inaccurate particulars of income

RUPA SACHIN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

160/- was disallowed as the nexus of incurring this expense against plot rent income of Rs.4,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee, was not established. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act against this addition. Thereafter, a separate penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

SACHIN MAHASUKHLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

160/- was disallowed as the nexus of incurring this expense against plot rent income of Rs.4,00,000/- disclosed by the assessee, was not established. The Assessing Officer had also initiated penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act against this addition. Thereafter, a separate penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated

KALPESHBHAI AMTHABHAI DESAI,MEHSANA vs. ITO (WARD 1), MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1271/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Kalpeshbhai Amthabhai The Ito बनाम/ Desai Ward-1 V/S. Rabari Vas Mehsana At & Post : Chhathiyarda Ta & Dist. Mehsana Mehsana – 384 002 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Auzpd 9800 A अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) .. Assessee By : Shri Ankit S. Rajyaguru, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

160/-. 2.1. During the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had deposited an amount of Rs.16,35,513/- in cash in his bank account with ICICI Bank. The AO, after issuing several notices under Sections 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act and considering the submissions, added the said amount of Rs.16,35,513/- as unexplained cash

ASHALATA KULSHRESTHA,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2016-17

160/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny on the ground that whether deduction from capital gain has been claimed correctly. The assessee declared heads of income from pension of Rs. I.T.A No. 1737/Ahd/2025 Ashalata Kulshrestha, A.Y. 2016-17 5,70,912/-, other source of Rs. 15,60,0000/- claimed deduction in chapter

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained

DILIPKUMAR VITTHALDAS DESAI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: The Tribunal Has Caused The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Appeal. The Assessee Enclosed The United States Passport Copy Of His Brother, Who Visited India In December 2023. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Stated In The Notarized Affidavit Thereby We Hereby Condone The Delay Of 87 Days In Filing The Above Appeals & Adjudicate The Cases On Merits.

Penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act relating to the Assessment Year 2012-13 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 83 & 84/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No 2 Dilipkumar Vitthaldas Desai vs. ITO 2. The registry has noted that there is a delay of 87 days in filing these appeals by the assessee. The assessee explained

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess