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)

183 TAXMAN 100 (DELHI) held that: "19 In the result, our conclusion are as follows: - (i) Section 271(1B) of the Act is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. (ii) The position of law both pre and post amendment is similar, in as much, the Assessing Officer will have to arrive at a prima facie satisfaction during

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

183/- in respect of deposit in the accounts of the assessee lying with the SBI, Nilambaugh Branch, Bhavnagar and Rs.8,000/- towards deposit in the account of the assessee lying with ICICI Bank along with 20% of the total expenses to the tune of Rs.45,990/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The penalty proceeding was also initiated u/s 271

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

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

183/- in respect of deposit in the accounts of the assessee lying with the SBI, Nilambaugh Branch, Bhavnagar and Rs.8,000/- towards deposit in the account of the assessee lying with ICICI Bank along with 20% of the total expenses to the tune of Rs.45,990/- was made by the Assessing Officer. The penalty proceeding was also initiated u/s 271

N STEEL PVT. LTD,MEHSANA vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 503/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 N Steel P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-3(1)(1) Plot No.79 Vs Ahmedabad. Nirmal Industrial Park Gidc, Gozaria 382 825 Tal.Vijaypur, Dist. Mehsana Pan : Aadcn 0075 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.S. Chhajad, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Karnani, Sr.Dr

183/- the income of the assessee was determined at NIL. The assessee has shown book profit computed under section 115JB. No adjustment was made on account of any disallowance made under the regular provisions of the Act. Thus, book profit shown by the assessee has been accepted as it is. Ultimate tax demand was raised on the basis of book

RBZ JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on preponderance of probability and the Revenue has to prove that the claim of the assessee was not genuine or was inflated its tax liability. Further merely because that additions have confirmed in appeal or no appeal has been filed by the assessee against additions made, it cannot be the sole ground

RBZ JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on preponderance of probability and the Revenue has to prove that the claim of the assessee was not genuine or was inflated its tax liability. Further merely because that additions have confirmed in appeal or no appeal has been filed by the assessee against additions made, it cannot be the sole ground

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

183 taxman 212 Depreciation—User for business—Flat purchased and used as office—Assessee obtained possession of the flat on 21st March,i2000 and got the deed registered on 29th March, 2000 after paying the charges to the concerned society—Flat was fitted with requisite amenities for using it as an office and one consignment was sent to this office

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

183 taxman 212 Depreciation—User for business—Flat purchased and used as office—Assessee obtained possession of the flat on 21st March,i2000 and got the deed registered on 29th March, 2000 after paying the charges to the concerned society—Flat was fitted with requisite amenities for using it as an office and one consignment was sent to this office

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s 795 is not required when the assessee directly incurred travelling and hotel expenses on Foreign Technicians and the same were not reimbursed to the foreign parties or the foreign technicians. In the case of CIT vs. Dunlop Rubber Co. Ltd., reported in 142 ITR 493 (CaL), the assessee company had paid its share of costs and expenses in relation

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

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

SHRI PRAVINBHAI RAVJIBHAI DESAI,,NADIAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, NADIAD

In the result, appeal IT(SS)A 115 to 116/Ahd/2014 of the assessee are allowed and appeal IT(SS)A 117/Ahd/2014 is dismissed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act on the quantum addition made in the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08 of different assessment orders made u/s. 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the act. The first three appeals IT(SS)A Nos. 115 to 117/Ahd/2014 are against the two orders of ld. CIT(A) for sustaining