SHRI SURESHBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

234/-levied u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the facts of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in not considering the submission dated 18.8.2015 and the decision of ITAT Delhi relied upon by the assessee in the case of Prem Arora and Pawenkumar Gupta and ignoring the fact that return income

SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees in ITA

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2012-13 Sureshbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0781K Assessment Year: 2012-13 Rajivbhai Gordhanbhai Dcit, बनाम/ Prajapati Cc-1(2) 308/43, Prajapati Vas Ahmedabad Vs. S.G. Highway Thaltej Ahmedabad-59 (Appellant) (Revenue ) P.A. No.Aprpp0713R

234/-levied u/s 271(1)(c) without properly appreciating the facts of the appellant. 2. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law on facts in not considering the submission dated 18.8.2015 and the decision of ITAT Delhi relied upon by the assessee in the case of Prem Arora and Pawenkumar Gupta and ignoring the fact that return income

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VADODARA vs. SHRI PRAVINCHANDRA RANCHHODBHAI PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2014-15 Shri Pravinchandra The Deputy Commissioner Of Ranchhodbhai Patel, Income-Tax, Vs. 52, Sarvodaya Society, Central Circle-2, Nizampura, Vadodara Vadodara Pan : Acppp 2695 F अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri Jigar Adhyaru, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Annapurna Gupta:

Section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act was initiated and notice u/s 153A was issued on 20.07.2015. In response to which the assessee had filed return of income u/s. 153A on 27.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs.27,80,341/-. Thereafter, the assessment was finalized u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 30.12.2016 determining

SHRI RAJESHKUMAR NAVNITLAL DANI,VADODARA vs. ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, all four appeals are dismissed

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) hence this ground fails. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed." 5. We have heard the rival contention and perused the material on record carefully. The first ground of appeal of the assessee stating that order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) for Vadodara is bad in law is general

SHRI CHANDRESH ROSHNALAL JAIN,,GODHRA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1272/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Shri Chandresh Roshanlal Jain, A.C.I.T., B-1, Centre Point, Vs. Panchmahal Circle, Nr. S.T. Stand, Godhra. Godhra.

U/s. 234 B and 234 C of the Act. 4. The appellant craves for leave to add, amend or alter all or any of the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of this appeal. 2. The only issued raised by the assessee vide ground No. 1 to 3 is that the learned CIT (A) erred

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234 D of the Act. 12) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

271(1)(c) of the Act on 25.3.2013 alleging that the company had filed inaccurate particulars of income while filing its return, and therefore, against the order of the CIT(A) it has been forced to file the appeal, otherwise, it would be burdened with penalty as well as directors would be exposed to criminal proceedings. He further contended that

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, RANGE-4,, BARODA

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1864/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2005-06 & "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2006-2007 Welspun Projects (Formerly Known Ito, Ward-4(1) As Msk Projects (India) Ltd. Vs Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutt Road, Alkapuri Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vartik Chokshi With Shri Biren Shah, Ar Revenue By : Smt.Aparna M. Agrawal, Dr

271(1)(c) of the Act on 25.3.2013 alleging that the company had filed inaccurate particulars of income while filing its return, and therefore, against the order of the CIT(A) it has been forced to file the appeal, otherwise, it would be burdened with penalty as well as directors would be exposed to criminal proceedings. He further contended 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

234). (c) Although the distinction between capital receipt and revenue receipt is well recognized, the task of assigning it to the appropriate head in borderline cases is not free from difficulty and becomes one of much refinement. Decided cases can provide illustrations and afford indications of the kind of consideration which may relevantly be borne in mind in approaching

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

234). (c) Although the distinction between capital receipt and revenue receipt is well recognized, the task of assigning it to the appropriate head in borderline cases is not free from difficulty and becomes one of much refinement. Decided cases can provide illustrations and afford indications of the kind of consideration which may relevantly be borne in mind in approaching

SHRI LALITKUMAR OMDEV GUGLANI,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-8,, BARODA

In the result, ground no. 1 to 3 of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes and ground no

234 B is dismissed as charging of interest is mandatory as per section 234B of the act. Ground no. 5 of the assessee regarding initiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271