THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. 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 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. 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

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

196,199 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Accused has stated reasons for discharge that Sec. 277 of Income Tax Act applies to tax evasion only but the complaint includes allegations of securing income tax refunds on the basis of forged- false documents only and hence sec. 277 of it act does not apply in this case. Complainant has alleged that

SHRI MUKESH RASIKLAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-9, NOW CIRCLE-4(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar

196,199 of Indian Penal Code. 2. Accused has stated reasons for discharge that Sec. 277 of Income Tax Act applies to tax evasion only but the complaint includes allegations of securing income tax refunds on the basis of forged- false documents only and hence sec. 277 of it act does not apply in this case. Complainant has alleged that

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

SHAILESH S. JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENT. CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

SHAILESH SUBODHCHANDRA JHAVERI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for both the year under consideration

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act are separately initiated concealment of income. [Addition: Rs. 1,52,20,891/-]” 7. In appeal, Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer. Ld. CIT(Appeals) observed that during search and survey proceedings, evidence showed that 212 companies were managed by Shirish Shah from his office, which

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.(A SUCCESSOR OF LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (EARLIER ACIT, CIRCLE-1, HOSUR), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(3)AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

JET AIR AGENCIES PVT. LTD,WEST BENGAL vs. THE ACIT, CENTRA CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground Nos

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)C of the Act in respect of addition & disallowance made. 10. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, adduce, or amend any grounds of appeal on or before or in course of hearing.” Challenge to reopening of assessment under Section 147 of the Act. 3. While discussing the assessee’s challenge to reopening of assessment under Section

VINODBHAI LAXMANBHAI PITHIYA,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1) (PREVIOUSLY THE ITO- WARD-1(2)(5)), VADODARA

In the result, this ground of appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is initiated for concealment of income.” 6. In appeal, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. 7. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A), confirming the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that