GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act) 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac) of the Act and absence of tax consultant, constituting

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271(l)(b): 18) Notice u/s 142(1) requires clarification of the source of the depositing amount in the bank account of Rs.3613600/-. for the same which is shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of Income

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271(l)(b): 18) Notice u/s 142(1) requires clarification of the source of the depositing amount in the bank account of Rs.3613600/-. for the same which is shown in the return of income filed in response to notice u/s 148 of Income

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234A and 234B of the Act. 7. The learned AO based on the directions of the DRP has erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2 1 1 AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SUNALI BIREN SHAH, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed the Cross

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act of Rs. 47,12,212/-. 2. Your Respondent craves right to add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of cross objection.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed her return of income

NILESH JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI, JURIDIS. AO- THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

u/s 271B are wrongly initiated on facts of the\ncase. It be so held now.\n9. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete, change or\nmodify any or all grounds of appeal before or at the time of the hearing.\"\n6. Shri S.N. Divatia, Ld. AR of the assessee, explained that the\nassessee is a trader

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted