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

273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee submitted that since the assessee has already deceased, his legal heir is not in a position to explain the business expediency of such transactions. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 36 Shri

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

273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee submitted that since the assessee has already deceased, his legal heir is not in a position to explain the business expediency of such transactions. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 36 Shri

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

273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee submitted that since the assessee has already deceased, his legal heir is not in a position to explain the business expediency of such transactions. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 36 Shri

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

273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee submitted that since the assessee has already deceased, his legal heir is not in a position to explain the business expediency of such transactions. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 36 Shri

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

273B of the Act for not levying penalty u/s. 271D and 271E of the Act. The assessee submitted that since the assessee has already deceased, his legal heir is not in a position to explain the business expediency of such transactions. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 36 Shri

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 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

FATEHSINH UDESINH PARMAR,AT. DENA, VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year: 2015-16 Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar, The Income Tax Officer, At. Dena Para, Vs Ward-3(1)(4), Hami Dena Road, Vadodara Vadodara-390022 Gujarat Pan: Awwpp2183 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Anil B Thakkar, Ar Revenue By : Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 4-8-2023 Passed By The Commissioner (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As 'Nfac'), Dismissing The Appeal Against The Order Penalty Passed By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As 'The Act') Relating To The Assessment Year (A.Y) 2015-16. Fatehsinh Udesinh Parmar Vs. Ito Asst. Year: 2015-16

u/s 271(1)(b) without considering provisions of section 273B of the Act. 9. Applying the provisions of Section 273B of the Act, we have no hesitation in deleting the penalty

SRI DEVI IRUKUVAJJULA,MAHARASHTRA vs. THE ITO, WARD-4, MEHSANA

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty u/s 271(l)(b). As per section 273B, no penalty shall be imposed, if there is a reasonable cause

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

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.

271 B of the Act by the Id. AO for not furnishing tax audit report u/s 44AB of the Act. While doing so, the Id AO has erred in not appreciating the fact that due to search operations in the Group cases during the financial year, it was humanly not possible to get the accounts audited as during the previous

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

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. 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