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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') in respect of furnishing jegerate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses without appreciating the fact that the addition made in the order is merely on account of difference of opinion in respect of accounting of lease operating expense. It is supported by the plethora

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') in respect of furnishing jegerate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses without appreciating the fact that the addition made in the order is merely on account of difference of opinion in respect of accounting of lease operating expense. It is supported by the plethora

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') in respect of furnishing jegerate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses without appreciating the fact that the addition made in the order is merely on account of difference of opinion in respect of accounting of lease operating expense. It is supported by the plethora

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act. 1961 ('the Act') in respect of furnishing jegerate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses without appreciating the fact that the addition made in the order is merely on account of difference of opinion in respect of accounting of lease operating expense. It is supported by the plethora

RAMCHAND BHULCHAND RAJAI,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1, , BHAVNAGAR

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarआयकर अपील सं / Ita No. 167/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 बनाम बनाम बनाम बनाम Ramchand Bhulchand Rajai, The Deputy Commissioner C/O. Jayesh Tyres, Vs. Of Income-Tax, Opp. Railway Station, Circle-1, Bhavnagar Bhavnagar-364001 Pan : Abmpr 4841 D अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar ""थ" की ओर से / Revenue By: Shri Prateek Sharma, Sr Dr सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 22/04/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 15/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta

271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income derived from the following disallowances made in the case of the assessee which stood confirmed up to the ITAT:- (i) Disallowance u/s 40A(3) of Rs.1,77,20,947/-, sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) and confirmed by the ITAT to Rs.65,20,741/- (ii) Disallowance of loading

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

275 of the Act." (vii) The proceedings for initiation of penalty proceeding cannot be set aside only on the grounds that the assessment order states penalty proceedings are initiated separately' If otherwise, it conforms lo the parameters ser out hereinabove are met. 7.1.1 As per the said sub-section, where any amount is added or disallowed in computing the total

MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4 Ld. NFAC ought to have considered the fact that all authorities has estimated income and accordingly, this is not a fit case for levy of penalty. 5 The order passed by AO confirmed by NFAC is required to be quashed as same has been without proper satisfaction. 6 The order passed

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), VADODARA

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition made on account of long-term capital gain under section 50C of the Act which is nothing but a deeming provision. Limitation u/s 275

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. SUZLON ENERGY LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result the Ground Nos

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 10. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering various facts and in not appreciating the facts and law in their proper perspective. 11. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer does not survive despite the fact that the decision of Hon’ble ITAT has been challenged and an appeal was filed before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court”. 3. Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the present appeal filed by the Revenue only to keep the matter alive

M/S. CHECKMATE FACILITY & ELECTRONIC SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty was called for u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In response, the Ld. DR submitted that the matter has got finality by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/[2023] 290 Taxman

RUPA SACHIN SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.02.2022 was passed whereby penalty of Rs.32,02,179/- was imposed on the assessee. ITA Nos.759 & 762/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 for both) Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah & Rupa Sachin Shah vs DCIT Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which

SACHIN MAHASUKHLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2015-16

271(1)(c) of the Act dated 10.02.2022 was passed whereby penalty of Rs.32,02,179/- was imposed on the assessee. ITA Nos.759 & 762/Ahd/2025 (Assessment Years: 2015-16 for both) Sachin Mahasukhlal Shah & Rupa Sachin Shah vs DCIT Page 3 of 5 4. Aggrieved with the penalty order, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority which

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA vs. SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD.( ERSTWHILE LUK INDIA PVT. LTD)), VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE (JAO-DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE1(1)(1), VADODARA, GUJARAT

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 8) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. Before us, at the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that he shall not be pressing for Ground No. 1 of the assessee