YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Since, both the appeals are emanating from a common issue for consideration, both the appeals filed by the assessee are being taken up together. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, Shri Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2011–12, declaring a total

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

2,77,500/- on account of being beneficiary to the accommodation entries in the scrip of Safal Herbs Limited, vide assessment order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B. This led to invocation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO against the assessee. The notices were issued

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

2,77,500/- on account of being beneficiary to the accommodation entries in the scrip of Safal Herbs Limited, vide assessment order dated 24.09.2021 passed by the AO u/s 147 read with Section 144 read with Section 144B. This led to invocation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) by the AO against the assessee. The notices were issued

ABDULMANNAN MOHAMMEDKASAM BASTAWALA,AHMEDABAD vs. WARD 5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

2– “1) Learned CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in upholding the penalty of Rs. 30,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act imposed by Ld. AO.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee had incurred substantial expenditure totaling to Rs. 19,96,363/- through several

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

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

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

2. The solitary ground raised by the Revenue reads as follows: 1) “Whether in the facts and on the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) is correct in deleting 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

KOLET RESORT CLUB PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(2), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is invalid 'ab initio' since there is no clear indication about the concealment of the particulars of the income, nor there is clear indication for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income 12. The Ld. CIT(A) erred by not fairly and judiciously appreciating the fact that the penalty proceedings and assessment proceedings

SNEHA PAWAN AGARWAL,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

2\n2.\nCondonation of Delay\n2.1\nAt the outset, it was noted by the Registry that the appeals filed by\nthe assessee were delayed by 177 days for A.Y. 2014-15 and 146 days for\nA.Υ. 2016-17 beyond the prescribed period of limitation under section\n253(3) of the Act. The assessee filed a petition for condonation

MAYANKKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA BHATT,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Mayankkumar Rameschandra Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) Bhatt Vs. Vadodara. B/202, Laljikrupa Society B/H. Mothers School Gotri Road, Baroda. Pan : Agypb 2066 R (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.Advocate Assessee By Revenue By : Shri Umesh Kumar Agrawal, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 24/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29 /07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.05.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], For The Assessment Year 2007–08, Arising Out Of The Reassessment Order Dated 27.03.2015 Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S. 147 Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(2)(4), Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”].

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(A) 4 dismissed the challenge as premature, holding that penalty proceedings are separate and independent. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) the assessee has preferred this appeal raising the following grounds: 1. The Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts of the case reopening the assessment u/s

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

253 pages), 28-11-2006, and thus overruled the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. VI (17) That learned ACIT ought to have appreciated that alleged income tax refund money receipts, which belongs to Govt. of India, and hence recovered fully with interest, does not constitute income chargeable to tax u/s. 2 (24)/U/s. 4 r.w. other sections

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

253 pages), 28-11-2006, and thus overruled the directions of Hon’ble ITAT. VI (17) That learned ACIT ought to have appreciated that alleged income tax refund money receipts, which belongs to Govt. of India, and hence recovered fully with interest, does not constitute income chargeable to tax u/s. 2 (24)/U/s. 4 r.w. other sections

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has claimed that in view of extension of period of limitation by Hon’ble Supreme Court owing to Pandemic Covid-19 in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No. 3 of 2020 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation for filing appeals, there

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

253(3) of the 1961 Act. The Revenue has claimed that in view of extension of period of limitation by Hon’ble Supreme Court owing to Pandemic Covid-19 in Suo Motu Writ Petition(C) No. 3 of 2020 , wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court extended the period of limitation for filing appeals, there

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),VADODARA vs. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(2),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

VADODARA ENVIRO CHANNEL LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS EFFLUENT CHANNEL PROJECT LTD.),,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) was levied by him vide order dated 19-06- I.T.A Nos. 2387/Ahd/15 & 2094/Ahd/17 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 3 Vadodara Enviro Channel Ltd. vs. ACIT 2015 (which is subject matter of ITA No. 2387/Ahd/2015). Subsequently, the AO provided another opportunity of being heard to the assessee and then levied a penalty of Rs.1

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

253(3). When technicalities are pitted against the substantial justice, the Courts will lean towards advancement of substantial justice rather than technicalities, unless the malafide on the part of the assessee is at writ large. Under the facts and circumstances, I do not find any malafide on the part of the assessee in filing this appeal belatedly with ITAT

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh