SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

section 271(1B). The contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives that the Assessing Officer has not recorded proper and specific satisfaction while initiating penalty proceedings is found to be not correct. It is noticed from the assessment order that the Assessing Officer had recorded his specific satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings while making the addition/disallowances. The summary of satisfaction

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

u/s 14A?\n\n2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,64,686/- on account of repairing expenses.\n\n3. The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on the issue of addition of Rs.94,71,966/- in total income as per provisions

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

271(1)(C) does not state clear default for which it is issued. Penalty Notice does not mention specifically, whether it is issued for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. It specifies ..... have concealed the particulars of your income and furnished inaccurate particulars of such income....................... Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker vs. ACIT Asst.Year –2011-12 While issuing

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income derived from the following disallowances made in the case of the assessee which stood confirmed up to the ITAT:- (i) Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.1,77,20,947/-, sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT to Rs.65,20,741/- (ii) Disallowance of loading

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) holding that the issue has been decided in favour of appellant by the Hon’ble ITAT, consequential penalty u/s.271

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: The Itat Ahmedabad Vide Ita No. 3289/Ahd/2002 & 3343/Ahd/2002. Addition On Account Of Profit On Sale Of Depb For The Purpose Of Rs.11,41,480 Deduction U/S.80Ia Deduction U/S.115Jb(2) In Respect Of Book Losses Of Pradeep Drug Rs.3, 39,12,399

section 271(16). On perusal of the assessment order, I find that the Assessing Officer in para-15 has every clearly mentioned that penalty notice u/s. 271(l)(c) was being issued on all the issues for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The Ld. Authorized Signatory has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court

NIRMA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY CIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same does not arise. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion we quash the penalty order. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 38.1 In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 1187/Ahd/2013 an appeal by the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. NIRMA LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1187 & 896/Ahd/2013 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Years: 2000-2001 & 2004-2005 Nirma Limited, A.C.I.T., Nirma House, Vs. Circle-5, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.

section 271(1)(c) of the Act on the same does not arise. Thus in view of the aforesaid discussion we quash the penalty order. Hence the ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 38.1 In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Coming to ITA No. 1187/Ahd/2013 an appeal by the assessee

BABUL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Babul Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Dy. Commissioner Of Urmin House, Sindhu Bhawan Income-Tax, Road, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad Circle-1(1)(1), Gujarat-380054 Ahmedabad Pan : Aabcb 1866 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "" यथ" "" यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" यथ" Assessee By : Shri Aseem Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Smt. Malarkodi R., Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23.10.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश

Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act" for short], confirming the levy of penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act of Rs.2,36,762/- for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income

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

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

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

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

206), the jurisdictional Gujarat High had applied the decisions of the Supreme Court in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT (124 ITR 1) and CIT v. Madras Auto Service P. Ltd. (233 ITR 468) wherein it had been held that unless the expenditure was in the capital field, it could not be regarded as expenditure for the acquisition

LUBRIZOL ADVANCED MATERIALS PRIVATE LIMITED,,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1349/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) Lubrizol Advanced Materials Acit, बनाम/ Private Limited, Circle – 1(2), Vs. 6Th & 7Th Floor, Jaswanti Baroda. Landmark, Mehra Industrial Estate, Lbs Marg, Vikhroli (W), Mumbai-400 079. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci 4361 B .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Shri Dhanesh Bafna, A.R. अपीलाथ" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By:

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, omit or alter grounds of appeal before or during the hearing of aforesaid matter.” 3. The ground no.1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore, the same is dismissed. 4. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that