VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order\nerroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under:\n"5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel\nfor the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

Section 271(1) (c) would come into play and work to the disadvantage of the assessee. Assessment Year: 1998-99 Page 5 of 11 9. From the sequence of the events narrated above it is crystal clear that at the time of reassessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings, the assessee could not prove that there was no furnishing of inaccurate

M/S. ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

penalty of Rs. 1,55,96,843/-- is levied u/s. 271(1)(c)of the Act.” 4. The aforesaid findings recorded by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the learned CIT(A) in appeal; and, before us, one of the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the assessee was that this claim of deduction made by the assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

254 of the Act was decided on 04.01.2013, The assessing officer in the re assessment order observed that the assesses could not justify its claim again on the second round. The assessing officer made the similar additions on both the above issues and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

254 of the Act was decided on 04.01.2013, The assessing officer in the re assessment order observed that the assesses could not justify its claim again on the second round. The assessing officer made the similar additions on both the above issues and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA vs. M/S. WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.,(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.,), BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

254 of the Act was decided on 04.01.2013, The assessing officer in the re assessment order observed that the assesses could not justify its claim again on the second round. The assessing officer made the similar additions on both the above issues and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

WELSPUN PROJECTS LTD.(FORMERLY KNOWN AS MSK PROJECTS (INDIA) LTD.),BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

254 of the Act was decided on 04.01.2013, The assessing officer in the re assessment order observed that the assesses could not justify its claim again on the second round. The assessing officer made the similar additions on both the above issues and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

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

In the result, appeals of Revenue are dismissed, whereas quantum appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2484 & 2485/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2000-2001 Welspun Projects Ltd. (Formerly Vs. Acit, Cir.4 Known As Msk Projects Baroda. 707-708, Sterling Centre R.C.Dutta Road, Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aabcm 4107 C

254 of the Act was decided on 04.01.2013, The assessing officer in the re assessment order observed that the assesses could not justify its claim again on the second round. The assessing officer made the similar additions on both the above issues and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c). Notice u/s 274 r.w.s. 271

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(1) (c) read with Explanation (1) of the Act. The minimum penalty leviable u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act on the above discussed addition/disallowance is 100% of tax effect which works out to Rs. 23000/- and maximum penalty is 300% of tax effect which works out to Rs.69,000/-. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances

M/S. VAM AIRTEX PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act in both the assessment years before us, i

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Miss Suchitra Kamble

Section 271(1) (c) read with Explanation (1) of the Act. The minimum penalty leviable u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act on the above discussed addition/disallowance is 100% of tax effect which works out to Rs. 23000/- and maximum penalty is 300% of tax effect which works out to Rs.69,000/-. Accordingly, considering the facts and circumstances

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand on and is liable to be deleted. 4. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ruling for ready reference. We observe that ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated

TEJAS GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

254/- by disallowing the claim of deductions u/s. 54EC and u/s. 54F and demanded tax thereon. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal against that assessment order which was partly allowed. It is thereafter the Assessing Officer proceeded with the penalty proceedings for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and levied minimum penalty of Rs.1,70,414/- u/s. 271

SHRI KASTURCHAND POPATLAL-HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act by way of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income/thereby leading to concealment. It is held that the assessee is liable for penalty under section 271(1)9c) of the Act, it is therefore directed that the assessee shall pay by way of penalty in addition to the amount of tax, a sum calculated

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

254 read with section 143(3) of the Act. During these proceedings, the Assessing Officer issued summons under sections 131/133(6) of the Act to 12 parties from whom the assessee had claimed to have made purchases. Based on the responses received and the lack of satisfactory evidences in most cases, the Assessing Officer held that the assessee had failed

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

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 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal