SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234D is not justified. 9 Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

234D is not justified. 9 Initiation of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section

CHIRAG ISHWARBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(6), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1182 & 1192/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-11 Chirag Ishwarbhai Patel, I.T.O., 49 Dharamanth Prabhu Society, Vs. Ward-3(3)(6), Near Adishawar Society, Ahmedabad. Nikol Road, Naroda, Ahmedabad.

penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, relevant to the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the learned C1T(A) has erred in law and fact by not quashing he assessment order, as the learned AO has not complied the provisions of section

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D of the Act. 2.2 The appellant states that levy of interest is wholly unjustified and the same may kindly be deleted. The above grounds relating to levy of interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act ,being consequential in nature,need no adjudication. ITEM No. Ill : INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(c) OF THE ACT: 3.1 The Learned

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

234D of the Act. 2.2 The appellant states that levy of interest is wholly unjustified and the same may kindly be deleted. The above grounds relating to levy of interest u/s 234B/C/D of the Act ,being consequential in nature,need no adjudication. ITEM No. Ill : INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(c) OF THE ACT: 3.1 The Learned

AMBROSIA REALTY,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(3)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in above\nterms

234D of the Act is\nunjustified.”\nInitiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is\nunjustified.”\nITA No. 2043/Ahd/2024 [Ambrosia\nRealty vs. ITO] Α.Υ. 2016-17\n-3-\n3.\nBriefly stated, the assessee before us is a partnership firm\nengaged in the real estate business as builders and developers.\nDuring the impugned year, the assessee

SPECTOMS ENGINEERING PVT.LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

penalty proceedings under section 271 (1)(c) of the I T Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 3. The brief facts of the case as per the issue involved in the grounds

GUJARAT URJA VIKAS NIGAM LTD,VADODARA vs. DCIT, CIRECLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Us.

penalty proceedings under section 271 (l)(c) of the I T Act. 5.0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4.1. Regarding grounds no. 1.0 to 1.2 namely disallowance u/s

ADANI AGRI FRESH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal and the Cross Objection of the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1653/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 & C.O. 201/Ahd/2015 (In Ita No.2720/Ahd/2015) "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Adani Agri Fresh Ltd., D.C.I.T, Adani House, Vs. Circle-1, Nr. Mithakhali Six Roads, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aafca0413P

234D after observing that levy of interest under those Sections was consequential in nature. He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that the respondent had challenged the very levy of interest and that since in the peculiar facts and circumstances of its case the ratio of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Bharat Machinery and Hardware Mart

ETHIO PLASTICS PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

234D of the Act is unjustified. 6. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271 (1)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The facts in brief are that on scrutiny it was discerned to the assessing officer that assessee had claimed interest on huge investment but no disallowance u/s. 14A of the act was made, therefore, assessing officer has applied provision

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA Nos.292 to 294/Ahd/2023 & 269 to 271/Ahd/2023 Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. vs. DCIT & ACIT vs. Uttar Gujarat Vij Company Ltd. Asst.Years

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition on account unexplained cash deposit amounting to Rs. 89,57,860/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the benefit of peak credit should given if addition if confirmed

MIKAL BHUPENDRABHAI PATEL,PETLAD vs. I.T.O WARD 1(3)(1), PETLAD, PETLAD

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 250 is bad in law and deserved to be uncalled for. 2. The assessing officer has erred in law and on facts in making the addition on account unexplained cash deposit amounting to Rs. 89,57,860/-. The same deserves to be deleted. Without prejudice to above the benefit of peak credit should given if addition if confirmed