DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed for A.Y. 2011-12. Now we shall take up ITA No. 218/Ahd/2020 (Shri Ashokji Chanduji Thakor for A.Y. 2011-12) 27. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s 271

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

penalty order passed under section 271[1][C] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2001-02. I.T.A No. 600/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2001-02 Page No 2 Akar Laminators Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing

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)

26,85,410/- and withdrawal of Rs.7,45,118/- in his ICICI Bank account, Ahmedabad-Relief Road Branch during the Financial Year 2017-18 but not filed the Return of Income. Therefore the assessment was reopened by issuing notice u/s. 148 on 27-03-2022. The assessee has not responded to the above notice. Therefore notice u/s. 142(1) dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA vs. GUJARAT STATE ELECTRICITY CORPORATION LIMITED, VADODARA

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

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

26-8- 2010 in ITA No.1420 of 2009 [2010] 194 taxman 387 (Delhi) in the case of Nalwa Sons Investment Ltd. (available in NJRS as 2010-LL-0826-2), held that when the tax payable on income computed under normal procedure is less than the tax payable under the deeming provisions of section 115IB of the Act, then penalty under