GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

27,759/- on selling and distributing expenses wherein penalty u/s. 271[1][c] was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The findings of Ld.CIT(A) are as follows: “7. Ground No. 3.1 pertains to imposition of penalty on disallowance of Selling and Distribution expenses incurred on behalf of M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (SPI) and M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

27,759/- on selling and distributing expenses wherein penalty u/s. 271[1][c] was levied for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The findings of Ld.CIT(A) are as follows: “7. Ground No. 3.1 pertains to imposition of penalty on disallowance of Selling and Distribution expenses incurred on behalf of M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries (SPI) and M/s. Sun Pharma Sikkim

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

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

27-09-2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Vadodara\n\n[CIT(A) in short] partially confirming the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as \"the Act\"). ITA No.1750/Ahd/2019 is filed by the assessee as against the rectification order dated 11-10-2019 passed

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

section 270A are\nreproduced as under:\nSection 271(1)(c)\n[Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of\nincome, etc.\n271. (1) If the (Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) any\nproceedings under this Act, is satisfied that nay person-\n(b). or\n(c) has concealed the particulars of "his income or so*** \"furnished\ninaccurate particulars

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

27. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has not brought anything on record with respect to the mismatch in the balance discussed above with respect to the parties namely Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd Baroda and BASF Styrenics

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

27. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. At the time of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee has not brought anything on record with respect to the mismatch in the balance discussed above with respect to the parties namely Indian Petrochemicals Corp. Ltd Baroda and BASF Styrenics