CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

271(1)(c) of the Act. (3) The ld. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent mentioned above.” ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT(OSD) Asst.Years–2009-10, 2010-11, 2008-09, 2014-15 & 2015-16 52. ITA No. 1129/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2008-09 filed

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 271AAC(1) in the reassessment order, however wrongly issued penalty notice u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Therefore we are of the considered opinion, the revisionary jurisdiction invoked u/s. 263 by directing the Assessing Officer to issue correct penalty notice by modifying the reassessment order is well within the provisions of law, which does not require any interference

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

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

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the Act on account of delay in furnishing TDS Certificates. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that only due to reasons beyond control and financial crunch, payment was made late by the Company, due to which there was consequential delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates. The said bonafide explanations were

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the Act on account of delay in furnishing TDS Certificates. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that only due to reasons beyond control and financial crunch, payment was made late by the Company, due to which there was consequential delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates. The said bonafide explanations were

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the Act on account of delay in furnishing TDS Certificates. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that only due to reasons beyond control and financial crunch, payment was made late by the Company, due to which there was consequential delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates. The said bonafide explanations were

TORQUE AUTOMOTIVE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(TSD),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 272A(2)(g) of the Act on account of delay in furnishing TDS Certificates. It is submitted that Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated that only due to reasons beyond control and financial crunch, payment was made late by the Company, due to which there was consequential delay in furnishing the TDS Certificates. The said bonafide explanations were

SHRI BHADRAWADI KRUSHI VIKAS SEVA SAHKARI MANDALI LIMITED,BOTAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(10), BHAVNAGAR, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 69A of the Act. 4. That the CIT Appeals has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the action of AO of initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271 AAC due to the addition u/s 69A. 5. That the CIT Appeals has erred in law and on the facts in upholding the action of AO of initiating penalty proceedings