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

271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271

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

271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271

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

271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271

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

271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271

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

271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy of penalty u/s. 271D/E. Wherever legislature intended to extend powers of levying penalty to CIT(A), it has been specifically provided in the respective sections viz. 270A, 271

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)

271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section

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)

271-1], 4[section 271J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 272A, sub-section (1) of section 272AA or section 2728 or sub- section (1) or sub-section (1A) of section 272BB or sub-section sub-section (1) of section 2 section 2728BB or clause (b) of sub-section

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

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

ATUL N. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 952 & 953/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Atul N. Shah, 45, Mahalaya Bungalows, Jcit, Vs. Nr. High Court, Sola, Range 4(2), Ahmedabad-380060 Ahmedabad Pan : Ajqps 4627 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271) held that conclusion as a result of suspicion could not take the place of proof. This principle would apply even in case of penalty proceedings though the decision was rendered in connection with grant of registration to the firm. With Regards to levy of penalty u/s 271E for violation of section 269T on similar facts It has not been

ATUL N. SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JT.CIT, RANGE-4(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं / Ita Nos. 952 & 953/Ahd/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Atul N. Shah, 45, Mahalaya Bungalows, Jcit, Vs. Nr. High Court, Sola, Range 4(2), Ahmedabad-380060 Ahmedabad Pan : Ajqps 4627 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त्यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा" रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, Ar "#थ% की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Atul Pandey, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/08/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

271) held that conclusion as a result of suspicion could not take the place of proof. This principle would apply even in case of penalty proceedings though the decision was rendered in connection with grant of registration to the firm. With Regards to levy of penalty u/s 271E for violation of section 269T on similar facts It has not been

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

SHRI CHANNABHAI AMTHABHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD--5,PATAN, MEHSANA

In the result, appeal ITA 783/Ahd/2018 is allowed and appeal ITA

271D is deleted. This appeal of the assessee is allowed. 8. The solitary ground of appeal is against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the assessing officer in levying the penalty amounting to Rs. 16,671/- u/s. 271(1)(c). 9. The fact in brief is that assessee has not filed his return of income

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