DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

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

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section

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

1A) of the Act, penalty with respect to income earned from non-members is liable to be sustained. Even if, the alternative claim of the assessee that the assessee is governed by the principles of mutuality is to be accepted, even then income earned by the assessee from non-members should have been offered for taxation and therefore, since

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer does not survive despite the fact that the decision of Hon’ble ITAT has been challenged and an appeal was filed before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court”. 3. Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the present appeal filed by the Revenue only to keep the matter alive

SUJAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], for Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee are as follows:- 1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

ATUL N. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 952 & 953/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Atul N. Shah, 45, Mahalaya Bungalows, Jcit, Vs. Nr. High Court, Sola, Range 4(2), Ahmedabad-380060 Ahmedabad Pan : Ajqps 4627 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

1A) where he confessed to arranging finance for the members of Sudama Resorts Pvt Ltd. He admitted to cheques being obtained from the Financiers. He however was unable to give the names of the Financiers. He (Mr. Kaushik Shah) owned up the same as HIS income for FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. The Assessee's (Mr Atul

ATUL N. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 952 & 953/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Atul N. Shah, 45, Mahalaya Bungalows, Jcit, Vs. Nr. High Court, Sola, Range 4(2), Ahmedabad-380060 Ahmedabad Pan : Ajqps 4627 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

1A) where he confessed to arranging finance for the members of Sudama Resorts Pvt Ltd. He admitted to cheques being obtained from the Financiers. He however was unable to give the names of the Financiers. He (Mr. Kaushik Shah) owned up the same as HIS income for FY 2012-13 relevant to AY 2013-14. The Assessee's (Mr Atul

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

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

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.02.2022 was passed whereby penalty of Rs.32,02,179/- was imposed on the assessee. ITA Nos.759 & 762/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 for both) Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah & Rupa Sachin Shah vs DCIT Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which

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

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.02.2022 was passed whereby penalty of Rs.32,02,179/- was imposed on the assessee. ITA Nos.759 & 762/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 for both) Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah & Rupa Sachin Shah vs DCIT Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

THE CO. OP. CRE SOC. OF VIS LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2016-17. I.T.A No. 786/Ahd/2025 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No 2 The Co.op Credit Society of VIS Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s own case

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

1A) The nature of work is excavation of all types of OB materials including top soil, lateritic sandstone and sandy clay etc including forward preparation, drilling, excavation, loading, transportation dumping, dozing, leveling at dump site at different levels (at the places shownby NLC authorities) by using machineries, at mine IA of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu. Relevant

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

1A) The nature of work is excavation of all types of OB materials including top soil, lateritic sandstone and sandy clay etc including forward preparation, drilling, excavation, loading, transportation dumping, dozing, leveling at dump site at different levels (at the places shownby NLC authorities) by using machineries, at mine IA of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu. Relevant

ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. MAHALAXMI INFRACONTRACT PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 484, 485 & 486/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2015-16, 2017-18 & 2018-19) बनाम/ Assistant Commissioner Mahalaxmi Infracontract Of Income Tax Private Limited Vs. Central Circle-1(4), B-21, Corporate House, Ahmedabad Opp-Pakwan-Ii, S. G. Highway, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aagcm4615E (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S. N. Divatia & Shri B. K. Patel, A.Rs. Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 22/01/2024 & Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/05/2024 Pronouncement

1A) The nature of work is excavation of all types of OB materials including top soil, lateritic sandstone and sandy clay etc including forward preparation, drilling, excavation, loading, transportation dumping, dozing, leveling at dump site at different levels (at the places shownby NLC authorities) by using machineries, at mine IA of Neyveli Lignite Corporation Limited, Neyveli, Cuddalore District, Tamilnadu. Relevant

SADBHAV ENGINEERING LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD, DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed\nand that of the Revenue are dismissed

1A (4)\ndeduction\n6.3.1\nPaper related\nto\ntransaction\nof Rs.18\nlakhs\n(Assessee's\nsubmission)\n6.4.1\nParties of\nKewalchand\nJain - AMR\nIndia and MIPL\n6.1.2\nCash received\nRana Jitendra\nConstruction\nCompany\n(Cash inflow as\nper assessee's\nsubmission)\n6.2.2\nApplicability\nof Section 69A\non such\nunaccounted\ncash receipts\nwhich is not\neligible for\ndeduction u/s\n801A\n6.3.2\nESOP\nexpenses

VARIS MAHENDRABHAI DOSHI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(2)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 147 of the act? Further, appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw all or any ground of appeal.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, did not file his return of income for Assessment Year 2011–12. Based on information available in the Non-Filer Monitoring System (NMS) and AIR data