SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

section 271(1)(c) but finally it was held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore liability of penalty arises with the following manner: “4.6 In view of above facts and legal position discussed in the preceding paras, the assessee is held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the liability of penalty arises

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

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

CREELOTEX ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

u/s. 271(1)(c) is leviable, how much more penalty becomes true and potent in a case where the concealment has been detected on account of proactive search action initiated by the department. In the case of the assessee, the assessee has not recorded details of his income and the same was worked out only during search and that

SHRI SHAILESHKUMAR SHIVRAMBAHI PATEL,,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Shaileshkumarshivrambhai Patel, The Ito, Ward-5, Prop. M/S. Toran Aqua Link, 23, Naval Vs Palanpur. Park Society, O/S. Becharpura Railway Station, Palanpur, Banaskantha-385001. Pan :Aefpp 7860 J (Applicant) (Responent)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Ahmedabad has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer of Shaileshkumar S Patel 2 levying penalty though the initiation for penalty proceedings has been made vide notice dated 18.11.2015, which is defective

SHRI BHAVESHBHAI N. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ld. Cit (A) & Agreed To The Addition Made By The Ao On Account Of Stcg For Rs. 41,39,180.00. Accordingly The Same Was Confirmed By The Learned Cit (A).

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. The assessee in support of his contention submitted various pronouncement of different Hon’ble Courts as detailed under: 1. Dilip N Shroff Vs. JCIT (2007) 291 ITR 519 (SC) 2. Ashok Patel Vs. CIT (2007) 292 ITR 11 (SC) 3. National Textile v CIT 249 ITR 125 (Gujarat) 4. CIT vs Baroda

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act for AY 2010-11 was untenable both on facts and in law.” 15. Accordingly, on going through the above report by the Investigation Wing and the order passed by ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Renukamat Multi State Cooperative Union Credit Society Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act for AY 2010-11 was untenable both on facts and in law.” 15. Accordingly, on going through the above report by the Investigation Wing and the order passed by ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Renukamat Multi State Cooperative Union Credit Society Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee

KAUSHIK PRAVINCHANDRA GOHEL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with respect to levy of penalty under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act for AY 2010-11 was untenable both on facts and in law.” 15. Accordingly, on going through the above report by the Investigation Wing and the order passed by ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Renukamat Multi State Cooperative Union Credit Society Ltd. (supra), we are of the considered view that the assessee