SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271B, 271AA, 271G etc. The assessee also submitted that initiation and levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E of the Act for A.Y. 2003-04 is beyond reasonable period of time and therefore barred by limitation. Alternatively, the assessee submitted that even on merits the assessee has reasonable cause as envisaged u/s. 273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D

M/S GURUKRUPA DEVELOPERS,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 41/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Gurukrupa Developers, D.C.I.T., Mahavir Complex, Vs. Central Circle-1, Opp. Fci Godown, Vadodara. Sapana Road, Godhra-389001. Pan: Aaifg8293P

u/s 271B. I find no reason to interfere with the penalty order for the AY 2012-13. 6. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT-A, the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. The learned AR before us inter-alia submitted that the books and other supporting documents of the assessee were impounded by the search team

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(a) was not imposable upon assessee. In this case, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee, a Hindu Undivided Family, filed its return of income for the assessment year 1979-80 on March 23, 1982, declaring nil income, though the due date for filing was July 31, 1979. The delay of 32 months

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus determined the assessed income as Rs. 1,68,10,620/- u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and also charged interest of u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) as the assessee company has concealed its income

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 5 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. section 271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

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

271B, section 271BA, section 271BB, section 271C, section 271CA, section 271D, section 271E, I.T.A 1932 & 1933/Ahd/2025 A.Y: 2016-17 5 DCIT Vs. Shri Umiya Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. section 271F, section 271FA, 99[section 271FAB.] section 271FB, section 271G, 1[section 271GA,J 2[section 271GB,] section 271H, 3 section 271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause

SHRI GIRISHBHAI M.PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 337/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 Girishbhai M. Patel, A.C.I.T., 4, Regent Park, Vs. Mehsana Circle, Vanza Co-Operative Society, Mehsana. Part-Ii, Near Judges Bungalow, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Abypp8093M

u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars of income.” 8.1 From the above finding of the AO, there is no clarity or indication that the penalty was levied for all the additions which were made during the assessment proceedings. Admittedly, there were 4 kinds of additions which are made

RAVIKANT D. MANGLANI,,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: S/Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Ravikant D. Manglani Dcit, Cent.Cir.1 1, Baharpura Vs Vadodara. Godhra 389 001. Pan : Agjpm 1372 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Written Submissions Revenue By : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 23/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/03/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per T.R. Senthil Kumar: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 11.6.2018 In Appeal No. Cit(A)-12/893/Cc-1/15-1618 Passed By The Ld.Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad [For Short “Ld.Cit(A)] Relating To The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Solitary Issue Before Us Is Against Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 271B Of The Act For Not Furnishing Tax Audit Report Under Section 44Ab Of Income Tax Act, 1961 ("The Act" For Short). None Appeared For The Assessee But A Written Submission Was Filed By The Assessee.

271B of the Act be levied. Assessee also relied upon various case laws to support his case. However, the ld.AO did not accept the contentions of the assessee. He levied penalty of Rs.54,106/- being a sum equal to one-half percent of the gross receipts of Rs.1,08,21,181/-. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed

SHREENATHJI REALTY,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the taxpayer stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c), it was reasonable to conclude that under section 271B, the Legislature purported to punish a ‘failure’ rather than a ‘delay’ in complying with the statutory provisions. If a delay is to be visited with penalty under section 271B, it would mean that the penalty amount would be the same irrespective of the period of delay. In other

NILKANTH DEVELOPERS,,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the taxpayer stands allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c), it was reasonable to conclude that under section 271B, the Legislature purported to punish a ‘failure’ rather than a ‘delay’ in complying with the statutory provisions. If a delay is to be visited with penalty under section 271B, it would mean that the penalty amount would be the same irrespective of the period of delay. In other

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

u/s. 44AB of the Act and thus the Id.AO imposed penalty on appellant. 3. The appellant is engaged in running a proprietary business wherein maintenance of books of accounts was not required statutorily, therefore the land purchased were not recorded in the books of account. The appellant had treated the said land as Investment. The Id.AO during the course

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

u/s. 44AB of the Act and thus the Id.AO imposed penalty on appellant. 3. The appellant is engaged in running a proprietary business wherein maintenance of books of accounts was not required statutorily, therefore the land purchased were not recorded in the books of account. The appellant had treated the said land as Investment. The Id.AO during the course

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

u/s. 44AB of the Act and thus the Id.AO imposed penalty on appellant. 3. The appellant is engaged in running a proprietary business wherein maintenance of books of accounts was not required statutorily, therefore the land purchased were not recorded in the books of account. The appellant had treated the said land as Investment. The Id.AO during the course