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)

260 (Pune): 7.2. Thus Ld Senior Counsel Mr. Thushar Himani appearing for the assessee submitted that in view of the above, no case is made out by the Ld AO for levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Act. Under such circumstances, penalty has been rightly deleted by Ld CIT(A), the same does not require any interference and Revenue

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)

260 (Pune): 7.2. Thus Ld Senior Counsel Mr. Thushar Himani appearing for the assessee submitted that in view of the above, no case is made out by the Ld AO for levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Act. Under such circumstances, penalty has been rightly deleted by Ld CIT(A), the same does not require any interference and Revenue

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)

260 (Pune): 7.2. Thus Ld Senior Counsel Mr. Thushar Himani appearing for the assessee submitted that in view of the above, no case is made out by the Ld AO for levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Act. Under such circumstances, penalty has been rightly deleted by Ld CIT(A), the same does not require any interference and Revenue

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

260,50/- returned by the assessee had not been inquired into both with regard to the details of the deposits or loan on which interest had been earned and also the source of the investments in them. c) that despite the assessee having disclosed income only in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act that too after lapse

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\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

260 (Pune):\n\n7. 2. Thus Ld Senior Counsel Mr. Thushar Himani appearing for\nthe assessee submitted that in view of the above, no case is made\nout by the Ld AO for levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Act. Under\nsuch circumstances, penalty has been rightly deleted by Ld CIT(A),\nthe same does not require any interference

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\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

260 (Pune):\n7. 2. Thus Ld Senior Counsel Mr. Thushar Himani appearing for\nthe assessee submitted that in view of the above, no case is made\nout by the Ld AO for levy of penalty u/s 271AA of the Act. Under\nsuch circumstances, penalty has been rightly deleted by Ld CIT(A),\nthe same does not require any interference

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

u/s. 263 of the Act by giving effect to the quantum order. For ready reference section 275 [1A] is reproduced as under: I.T.A No. 858/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 7 DCIT Vs. Pinac Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. “… [(1-A) In a case where the relevant assessment or other order is the subject matter of an appeal to the Commissioner

DHANLABH TRADING PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

260/-. 3. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has sustained the penalty levied by the assessing officer . During the course of appellate proceedings before us, ld. counsel has submitted that regular assessment has been finalized on the basis of book profit, therefore, no penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) was attracted in respect

DEPUTY COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(4) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. FALGUNI SURYAKANT THAKAR , AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in quantum appeal in IT(SS)A No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

section 69 of the Act being unexplained investment made by the assessee for the Asst. Year 2009-10. The assessing officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act and levied penalty of Rs. 1,34,49,260

M/S. SPORTS CLUB OF GUJARAT LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming penalty of Rs. 2,52,728/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. I.T.A No. 1852/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No 2 Sports Club of Gujarat

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

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT.,CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. While the assessee has come up in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings, both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeal against order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, wherein the ld.CIT(A) had deleted penalty levied on certain additions

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. While the assessee has come up in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings, both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeal against order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, wherein the ld.CIT(A) had deleted penalty levied on certain additions

GUJARAT MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4, NOW CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumar & Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Gujarat Mineral Development Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Corporation Ltd. Vs Ahmedabad. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. Asstt.Year: 2005-06 Dcit/Jcit, Cir.4 Gujarat Mineral Development Ahmedabad. Vs Corporation Ltd. “Khanji Bhavan” 132Ft Ring Road University Ground, Ahmedabad. (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, With Shri Bandish Soparkar, Ar & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 30/11/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptathe Present Appeals Relate To The Same Assessee, Pertain To The Same Assessment Year & Are Against Orders Passed By The

271(1)(c) of the Act for the Asst.Year 2005-06. 2. While the assessee has come up in appeal against order of the ld.CIT(A) passed in quantum proceedings, both the assessee and the Revenue have filed appeal against order passed by the ld.CIT(A) in penalty proceedings, wherein the ld.CIT(A) had deleted penalty levied on certain additions

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

260 u/s 201(1 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) grievously erred in law as well

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

260 u/s 201(1 A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” “1. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) grievously erred in law as well

GSPC PIPAVAV POWER COMPANY LTD.-GPPC,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) be quashed. (iii) Such and further relief as the nature and circumstances of the case may justify.” 3. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring income at Rs. nil was filed on 28th Sep, 2012. The case of the assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment and notice u/s

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 14A could not be made applicable to investments which are capable ofgenerating taxable income; and 6 The investment made by the Appellant in the partnership firm Is strategic in nature and not forthe purpose of earning exempt income. 13.2 Without Prejudice to the above, the CIT(A) grossly erred in disallowing the selling and distribution expenses u/s. 14A without