SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- u/s 22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- u/s 22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- u/s 22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- u/s 22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

200/- u/s 22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

penalty of Rs. 63,39,200/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. ITA No. 799/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 ACIT vs. Shri Chandrakant G. Patel 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in considering the mistake by the assessee as bonafide even though it is clear from the facts

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1) (c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under: "5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order\nerroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under:\n"5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel\nfor the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Briefly stated facts commonly for all the three years are that a search under Section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Briefly stated facts commonly for all the three years are that a search under Section

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 15. Briefly stated facts commonly for all the three years are that a search under Section

THE ACIT, ,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA vs. SHRI MAULIKKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, MEHSANA

In the result, both the appeals of the revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2055/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 The A.C.I.T., Shri Maulikkumar Manilal Patel, Mehsana Circle, Vs. Opp. Umiya Complex, Mehsana. Apollo Compound, Highway, Mehsana-384002. Pan: Abxpp3020D

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act. Therefore, by virtue of provision of Explanation -1(B) to section 271(1)(c), penalty is leviable. As per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, minimum penalty leviable is 100 percent of the tax sought to be evaded and the maximum penalty leviable