SHRI JAYDEEPSINH VAJESINH DODIYA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT. C.I.T., RANGE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, Ground number 2 of the assessee’s appeal is party allowed

u/s. 271-D of the I.T. Act which has been levied by the Ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 7(1), Ahmedabad, though the same is barred by time in view of the Provisions of Sec. 275(1)(c) are covered and not it pertains to Sec. 275(1)(a). 2. Without prejudice to the above

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Accountant Member | ITA No: 2179 & 2180/Ahd/2025 | | Assessment Year: 2015-16 | | Baraiya Galaji Kalaji 93 Arjun Vas, Nana Chiloda, B.O. Ahmedabad Gandhinagar-382330 Gujarat, India PAN: BEMPB9663R (Appellant) | Vs | The ITO, Ward-1, Gandhinagar Gandhingar (Respondent) | Assessee Represented: Shri Chintan Thakkar, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 03-03-2026 Date of pronouncement : 09-

u/s. 271(1)(b) was initiated for not responding to the statutory notices issued on 06-11-2022. Again the assessee was not responding to the above penalty notice, therefore through verification unit notice was duly served on the assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10

BARAIYA GALAJI KALAJI,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

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

u/s. 271(1)(b) was initiated for not responding to the statutory notices issued on 06-11-2022. Again the assessee was not responding to the above penalty notice, therefore through verification unit notice was duly served on the assessee. However the assessee failed to respond to the show cause notice thereby the assessing officer levied penalty of Rs.10

TROIKAA PHARAMACEUTICLAS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD),RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

269 has also held the same. The AO was, thus, duty bound to Levy interest as applicable. In view of the above this ground is dismissed. 7. Ground No. IV relates to initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961. No appeal lies against the initiation of penalty under section 271

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

271 ITR 512 has taken the view that liberal view ought to have been taken by the authority as the delay was only of a very short period and the appellant was not going to gain anything from it. 6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, we find, it is stated

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

271 ITR 512 has taken the view that liberal view ought to have been taken by the authority as the delay was only of a very short period and the appellant was not going to gain anything from it. 6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, we find, it is stated

ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KUNJ INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the Revenue stand dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.1809-1810/Ahd/2017 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2854/Ahd/2016 With C.O. 13/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 D.C.I.T, M/S.Kunj Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., 4Th Floor, Zodiac Plaza, Cirle-2(1)(2), Vs. Ahmedabad. St. Xaviers Corner, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009. Pan: Aadck1900D

271 ITR 512 has taken the view that liberal view ought to have been taken by the authority as the delay was only of a very short period and the appellant was not going to gain anything from it. 6. Applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court as well as various High Courts, we find, it is stated

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of income tax act has been cancelled by tribunal, prosecution proceedings automatically ends. It is further pleaded that it has been held in the case of K.C. Builders 265 ITR 562(SC), that findings of tribunal are binding on the criminal court. It is further pleaded that in this case, prosecution cannot be sustained

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of income tax act has been cancelled by tribunal, prosecution proceedings automatically ends. It is further pleaded that it has been held in the case of K.C. Builders 265 ITR 562(SC), that findings of tribunal are binding on the criminal court. It is further pleaded that in this case, prosecution cannot be sustained

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income. 7.3 In response to summons issued in respect of M/s. Dhanvidhya Impex Pvt. Ltd., Shri Rupang R. Shah, Director attended on 9.12.2011. Shri Rupang Shah had stated that the statement given before Investigation Wing in the case of M/s. Goldfinch Jewellery

GOLD FINCH JEWELLERY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act is initiated for concealing the particulars of income. 7.3 In response to summons issued in respect of M/s. Dhanvidhya Impex Pvt. Ltd., Shri Rupang R. Shah, Director attended on 9.12.2011. Shri Rupang Shah had stated that the statement given before Investigation Wing in the case of M/s. Goldfinch Jewellery

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat