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

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

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb of Section 271

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb of Section 271

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb of Section 271

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb of Section 271

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

274 of the IT. Act 1961 and considering the same, penalty order requires to be cancelled. 5. The solitary contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us was that mere fact of non-filing of return of income did not tantamount to concealment/furnishing inaccurate particulars of income for the purpose of levying penalty u/s. 271(1

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

section 54G of the Act. However, the AO in his assessment order passed u/s 143(3)/ 263 of the Act dated 30.08.2016 initiated the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. The AO subsequently issued a notice u/s 274

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

274 does not clearly specify the charge based on which, the penalty proceeding are initiated, the penalty proceedings needs to be quashed since there is no application mind by the Learned AO.” 3. The brief fact of the case is this that the assessee engaged in the business of dealing in construction, telecom & infrastructure work filed its return of income

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

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Vs Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Ahmedabad Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 Pan : Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Ar & Shri Biren Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) was issued by the Assessing Officer on 15.02.2016; in response to which, a detailed written submission was filed by the assessee vide letter dated 11.03.2016 offering its explanation in respect of each and every addition/disallowance sustained/confirmed by the learned CIT(A) in order to support and substantiate its case that there was no concealment

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

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

M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result the levy of the penalty for an amount of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 347/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Anuj Mehta, Vs. Ward-3(1)(3), Nandanvan Opp. Shapath Iv, Ahmedabad. Nr.Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad.

section 292 BB of the Act saves the error if any in the notice issued u/s 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and, therefore, the plea of the assessee is not justified and thus he has stated that A.Y. 2012-13 8 mentioning of an incorrect charge in the notice of penalty

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

274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act whether it was for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Thus in the absence of any specific charge, the penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is not sustainable. 8. On the other hand, the ld. DR filed the written submission as forwarded