VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order\nerroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant\nfinding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under:\n"5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel\nfor the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

SHRI NIRAL KRUPESH PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(3), BARODA

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act)” 2. The learned AO erred in fact in law in levying penalty without specifying the charge (i.e whether for inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of particular of income) of penalty. 3. Your appellant craves the right to add to alter, amend , substitute, delete or modify

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

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA vs. M/S/ AMAR MINING COMPANY,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 1998-99

u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The counsel for the appellant has further submitted that merely because the matter was old and the assessee firm could not produce these facts, can at best be made a ground for making addition however, the same cannot be made a ground for levy of penalty. He referred to the decision

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

DEEPAK PETROCHEM LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.2469/Ahd/2013 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2002-03 Deepak Petrochem Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cir.1(1) 303, Bn Chambers Baroda. R.C. Dutt Road Baroda 390 005. Pan : Aaacd 7462 L

penalty imposed under this section can range in between 100% to 300% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee, as a result of such concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. The other most important features of this section is deeming provisions regarding concealment of income. The section not only covered the situation in which the assessee

SHRI KIRTIKUMAR VASANTBHAI THAKKAR,,PATAN vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) is not applicable when additions are made on estimate basis without any cogent material or findings on record that assessee concealed the income or provided inaccurate particulars of income.”\ All the above mentioned three grounds of appeal are interconnected to the same issue therefore they are adjudicated together as below. 3. In this case, return

WIN PRINTS ,,AHMEDABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar] Assessment Year : 2009-10 Win Prints ......…………......Appellant H-903, Sarjan Tower, Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad - 380052 [Pan : Aaafw 4084 A] Vs. Income Tax Officer .......................Respondent Ward 6 (2), Ahmedabad

271(1)(c) on addition u/s 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for Rs.31,48,943/- though explained. The penalty levied be deleted.” 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that there are sundry creditors which have

SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1) (c) of the Act being premature is not entertained." The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars either with the return of income or during assessment proceedings and also appellant has not concealed any particulars of income. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the additions

THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(OSD),, GANDHINAGAR vs. SABARMATI GAS LIMITED,, GANDHINAGAR

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes

271(1) (c) of the Act being premature is not entertained." The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the appellant has not furnished any inaccurate particulars either with the return of income or during assessment proceedings and also appellant has not concealed any particulars of income. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the additions

AURA SECURITIES PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

273) held as under: “14. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the relevant facts are not in dispute. The respondent assessee sold shares of Rustom Mills and Industries Ltd for a sum of Rs.4,01,000/- on which transaction, the assessee claimed long term capital loss of Rs.8,38,790/-. During the same period

AURA SECURITIES PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.834/Ahd/2012 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Dcit, Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Circle-1, V Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Ahmedabad. S. House, 53, Shrimali Society, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.986/Ahd/2012 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Aura Securities Pvt. Ltd. Acit, Akhay Building, B/H, Vadilal Vs. Circle-1, House, 53, Shrimali Society, Ahmedabad. Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-380009 Pan: Aabct4637N

273) held as under: “14. Having thus heard the learned counsel for the parties, we find that the relevant facts are not in dispute. The respondent assessee sold shares of Rustom Mills and Industries Ltd for a sum of Rs.4,01,000/- on which transaction, the assessee claimed long term capital loss of Rs.8,38,790/-. During the same period

M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADD.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT.,RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

BODAL CHEMICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. BODAL CHEMICAL LTD., AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 263 or 147 of the Act by the revenue. Therefore we can safely presume that the claim of the depreciation of the assessee in the 1st year has attained finality. Admittedly the 1st year is the base assessment year from where the issue of depreciation is emanating. The question arises once the depreciation has been allowed