SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. 'for concealment of particulars of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income whereas levied penalty by holding that the Assessee has 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income. 2.3 Without prejudice to above, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the issuance of show cause notice under section 274

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

271(1)(c) of the Act i.e. 'for concealment of particulars of income' and 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income' whereas levied penalty by bolding that the Appellant has 'furnished inaccurate particulars of income.\n\n3.3 Without prejudice to above, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the issuance of show cause notice under section 274

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be considered adversely. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case there was no divergence of opinion about the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and levied. On merits, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that AS-19 was not notified

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be considered adversely. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case there was no divergence of opinion about the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and levied. On merits, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that AS-19 was not notified

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be considered adversely. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case there was no divergence of opinion about the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and levied. On merits, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that AS-19 was not notified

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be considered adversely. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case there was no divergence of opinion about the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and levied. On merits, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that AS-19 was not notified

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act, it cannot be considered adversely. The ld. Sr. DR submitted that in the present case there was no divergence of opinion about the limb under which the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated and levied. On merits, the ld. CIT-DR submitted that AS-19 was not notified

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Further the argument of the Revenue that "submitting an incorrect claim for expenditure would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income" is not correct. By no stretch of imagination can the making of an incorrect claim in law, tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars. I.T.A No. 600/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2001-02 Page

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

271(1)(c) of the Act and\nissue a fresh penalty notice u/s 271AAC(1) of the Act. Needless to\nmention, the A.O. may levy penalty or keep the proceedings in abeyance\ntill the outcome of Ld. CIT(A)'s order on the issue of addition u/s 69A of\nthe Act. with this, I set aside the notice issued u/s

AMISH PRAVINCHANDRA VYAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the question is answered in the negative, i

Bench: Ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act and dismissed the assessee appeal.

Section 69 of the I.T. Act may please be cancelled. 6. The appellant prays liberty to add or alter any ground at the time of hearing. 5. Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submits that If the AO wants to levy penalty u/s. 271(1)(c), the statutory notice issued u/s. 274

SUNDEK INDIA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c)/r.w.s. 274 of the Act for furnishing ‘inaccurate particulars’ of income. For the sake of ready reference, the relevant paragraph is reproduced hereunder:- “….. …… 5.11 Hence in view of the above provision of the Act i.e. section

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), both the limbs can be invoked jointly or separately with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but while invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to categorically mention in the assessment order as well as in the notice issued u/s 274

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), both the limbs can be invoked jointly or separately with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but while invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to categorically mention in the assessment order as well as in the notice issued u/s 274

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), both the limbs can be invoked jointly or separately with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but while invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to categorically mention in the assessment order as well as in the notice issued u/s 274

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

penalty u/s 271(1)(c), both the limbs can be invoked jointly or separately with the additions made by the Assessing Officer, but while invoking Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the Assessing Officer has to categorically mention in the assessment order as well as in the notice issued u/s 274

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

274 read with section 271(1)(c) was defective since it did not specify whether the penalty proceedings were initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars, and therefore reliance was placed on the decision in CIT vs. SSA’s Emerald Meadows (2016) 73 taxmann.com 241 (SC). 5. The CIT(Appeals), however, was not convinced with the explanations

SHASHI JIVANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2018 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.9,27,896/- on the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

SHASHI JIVANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2018 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.9,27,896/- on the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

SWAMINARAYAN CO.OP.BANK LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3(1),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1411/Ahd/2019 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. The Acit बना 1, Ashok Chambers Circle-3(1) Opp. Pathak Gate Police Station Ahmedabad म/ Madanzampa Road V/S. Vadodara 390 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaaas 1932 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) …… "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashish Kanabar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ashok Natha Bhalekar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 9/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 08/07/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Penalty Order Dated 27/02/2019 Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. Swaminarayan Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Vs. Acit Asst. Year : 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c). 2. No penalty under section 271(1)(c) can be levied when all necessary facts were disclosed and there is no concealment. 3. Notice issued under section 274