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

section 271F of the Act. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. 11. Before going into the assessee’s specific set of facts, it would be useful to discuss some relevant judicial precedents on the subject. ITA Nos. 705 to 707/Ahd/2025 Avani Dipakbhai Shah vs. ACIT Asst. Years

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act)"]. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee, Shantiji Piraji Suthar, an illiterate farmer residing in a remote village, did not file his return of income for the AY 2010-11, as his sole source of income was agricultural, which is exempt

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act)"]. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee, Shantiji Piraji Suthar, an illiterate farmer residing in a remote village, did not file his return of income for the AY 2010-11, as his sole source of income was agricultural, which is exempt

SHANTIJI PIRAJI SUTHAR,BANASKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, PALANPUR

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita Nos.787/Ahd/2024, 788/Ahd/2024 & 789/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shantiji Piraji Suthar The Ito बनाम/ Sherpura, Ward-4 V/S. Tal.Deesa Palanpur – 385 001 Banaskantha – 385 535 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Bwops 8650 P अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri Anil Brahmakshatriya, Ar Revenue By : Shri V.K. Mangla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 24/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

penalties u/s 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act)"]. Facts of the case: 2. The assessee, Shantiji Piraji Suthar, an illiterate farmer residing in a remote village, did not file his return of income for the AY 2010-11, as his sole source of income was agricultural, which is exempt

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F

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)

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 (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

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)

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 (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

SAROJBEN NATVARBHAI PATEL,CHHOTAUDEPUR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

271(1)(b) of the Act.\n17. The learned CIT(A) and the AO erred in fact and in law in initiating penalty\nproceedings u/s. 271F of the Act.\n18. The Appellant reserves the right to add, or modify, or substitute, or alter, or\ndelete all or any of the grounds of appeal.\"\nThe brief facts of the case

JASWANT N. SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTL. TAXN. , AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble&

Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act 11. In view of the above, the penalty levied u/s 271

JASWANT N. SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,INTL.TAXN., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble&

Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act 11. In view of the above, the penalty levied u/s 271

JASWANT N. SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, INTL. TAXN., AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble&

Sections 271(1)(c) and 271F of the Act 11. In view of the above, the penalty levied u/s 271

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards concealment of income and under Section 271F of the Act on account of non-filing of return of income by the assessee, for the impugned assessment year. Since the facts and issues for consideration are common for ITA Nos. 554 to 556/Ahd/2025 Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol vs. ITO Asst. Year

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1, ANAND), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards concealment of income and under Section 271F of the Act on account of non-filing of return of income by the assessee, for the impugned assessment year. Since the facts and issues for consideration are common for ITA Nos. 554 to 556/Ahd/2025 Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol vs. ITO Asst. Year

UPENKUMAR AMRUTJI VIHOL,VADODARA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(2)(PREVIOUSLY ITO, WARD-1, ANAND), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act towards concealment of income and under Section 271F of the Act on account of non-filing of return of income by the assessee, for the impugned assessment year. Since the facts and issues for consideration are common for ITA Nos. 554 to 556/Ahd/2025 Upenkumar Amrutji Vihol vs. ITO Asst. Year

RINKLE VORA,AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(2)(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

271(1) (c) of the Act when no such penalty is leviable. The proceedings initiated by the Ld. AO should be dropped as it is wrongly initiated. 3. Initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271F of the Act. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO has grossly erred in initiating the proceedings for levy

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)

Section 1448(9) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in assessing income of 2,10,18,000/- without verifying the actual cost of acquisition and sale consideration and merely relying on system-generated information without any independent inquiry or supporting evidence. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled judicial position laid down

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-

Section 1448(9) of the Act. 4. That the Ld. Assessing Officer erred in assessing income of 2,10,18,000/- without verifying the actual cost of acquisition and sale consideration and merely relying on system-generated information without any independent inquiry or supporting evidence. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the settled judicial position laid down