RAJENDRA GADHIA,GANDHINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD , INT.TAX, AHMNAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.31/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Rajendra Gadhia The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Plot No.672 Ward-1, Int.Tax. V/S. Pachasheel Park Ahmedabad Sector No.21 Gandhinagar – 382 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bcppg 3929 Q अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsingh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Surendra Kumar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

penalty u/s 271 AAC (1) of the I. T. Act, 1961. 5) The learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the Id. AO in charging interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change

THE DY. CIT., CIRCLE-4(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. SURAJ LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1052/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10)

271(1)(c) of the Act in the facts and circumstances of the case. The operative para of the order of the CIT(A) adjudicating the issue in favour of assessee reads as under: DCIT vs. M/s.Suraj Limited Asst.Year - 2009-10 “I have carefully considered the penalty order along with the assessment order u/s, 143(3). ClT(A)'s order

M/S. SHREEJI CORPORATION,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE JCIT, GANDHINAGAR RANGE,, GANDHINAGAR

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified.” 3. The fact in brief is that return of income declaring income of Rs. 21,24,554/- was filed on 30th Sep, 2011. The case was subject to scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) of the act was issued on 28th Sep, 2012. Assessment order u/s

CADILA HEALTHCARE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

Appeal are dismissed as not pressed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT. Act in respect of each of the additions made by him in the assessment order u/s 143(3) r.w.s.144C, on the ground that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income, clearly ignoring the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Reliance

D. J. STOCK BROKING PRIVATE LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground number 1 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

section 68 of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. While making addition, the AO observed as under: “2.6 A careful study of the affairs of the assessee company and its worthiness and the affairs of the so-called share applicants and its worthiness, it appears that the assessee company, which has been showing losses in the return

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

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12.\nOn the facts and in the circumstances

GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that

THA ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that

THE ADDL.CIT, RANGE-1, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUOROCHEMEICALS LTD, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LTD.,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that

GUJARAT FLUROCHEMICALS LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1,, BARODA

Appeals of the Revenue are dismissed, whereas appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediasr. No.

270 CTR 66. This decision propounds that when the taxability of the assessee is going to be effected, then it can raise a fresh plea before the appellate authorities. Taking a leaf from this reasoning, ITAT, Mumbai and Bangalore have propounded that fresh claim can be made even before the DRP. Thus, respectfully following these decisions, we uphold that