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

2. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Rs. 6,52,00,000/-: 2.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the Act, the Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in levying the penalty. 2.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

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

2. | Deduction of remuneration received from partnership firm for determination of Book Profits u/s.115JB | 574950297 | 65141869 | 195425607 |\n| | Total | 66215043 | 198645129 |\n\nAfter considering the facts of the case, I levy a penalty of ₹ 14700000/-, (Rupees One Crore Forty Seven lakhs only) as against maximum penalty of 43992351/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars under the General Provisions and levy a penalty

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:

2,25,73,549/- The assessee has not filed an appeal on this issue Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated separately on this addition.” C. Disallowance of various expenses under the head of office expenses of Rs. 39,50,678/-. “…..since the assessee has not furnished any details or evidence related to balances written-off and the assessee

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

2. It is observed during the scrutiny of the records that in the order u/s\n147 r.w.s.144B dtd. 29.03.2022 while making addition of Rs.66,63,250/-\nu/s 69A of the I.T. Act, penalty proceedings u/s 271AAC were initiated.\nHowever, in the concluding para of the assessment order it is incorrectly\nmentioned that \"Notice issued for 271

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.

2(1), Ahmedabad imposing the Impugned penalty for the alleged default of concealment of particulars of income in utter disregard to the fact that as per the show cause notice issued on 29/11/2017 by the AO u/s. 274 r.w.s. 271 the default for which penalty was sought to be levied was 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income

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 2

SUNILKUMAR BHAGCHAND TALREJA,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts confirming the action of the AO in levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee is an individual and filed

SUNILKUMAR BHAGCHAND TALREJA,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 2107 & 2108/Ahd/2025 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15

2. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on facts confirming the action of the AO in levying a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- u/s. 271(1)(b) of the Act. 3. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, delete or alter one or more grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee is an individual and filed

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

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

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 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act that why there is a component of concealment of income or why there is a component of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part

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

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 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act that why there is a component of concealment of income or why there is a component of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part

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

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 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act that why there is a component of concealment of income or why there is a component of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part

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

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 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act that why there is a component of concealment of income or why there is a component of furnishing of inaccurate particulars on the part

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