MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

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

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under: "5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel for 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

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

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

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

KIRI DYES & CHEMICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

254 ITR 158); Sarda Prasad Singh v. CIT (173 ITR 510 (Gauhati), it has been hled that if the Commissioner finds, while examining the records of an assessment order under section 263, that the Assessing Officer has not initiated penalty proceedings, he cannot direct initiation of penalty proceedings because penalty proceedings are not a part of assessment proceedings. The Commissioner

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA, RACE COURSE vs. UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, HALOL

Accordingly dismissed.\n18.9 Based on the findings and conclusions set out hereinabove, the\nappeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by\nthe assessee is partly allowed

u/s 143(3) of the Act,\nwhereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the\nconfirmation of two other disallowances sustained by the CIT(A).\nFacts of the Case\n2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and\ntrading of pharmaceutical products and development of pharmaceutical\nformulation technologies. For the year under consideration, the assessee\nfiled

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

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

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

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

UNIMED TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-17 Unimed Technologies Limited Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Survey No.22 & 22, Vs. Vadodara. Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B Asstt.Year : 2016-17 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Unimed Technologies Limited Vadodara. Vs. Survey No.22 & 22, Baska, Ujeti Halol Panchmahal Pan : Aaace 4022 B (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar Assessee By : Shri Sher Singh, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/07/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

u/s 143(3) of the Act, whereas the assessee has filed a cross-objection challenging the confirmation of two other disallowances sustained by the CIT(A). Facts of the Case 2. The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical products and development of pharmaceutical formulation technologies. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed

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(1

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

Penalty; proceeding u/s 271(l)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961 for concealment of income by way of furnishing the inaccurate particular of income is initiated separately. This ground of appeal is accordingly dismissed. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 6. The learned AR before us filed