DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

32. In the case of Shri Girish Vitthalbhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 798, 799, 800 & 801/Ahd/2015, the ITAT Ahmedabad made the following observations on this issue: “12. As regards ITA No.801/Ahd/2015 for Assessment Year 2011-12, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) cannot be levied in this assessment year as this is the search year in view

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:

section 144 of the Act was completed determining the loss at (-)Rs.11,72,67,828/-. That assessment was challenged before this Tribunal and the case was set-aside vide order dated 01.08.2014 in ITA No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 and accordingly assessment was finalized u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the total loss was determined at (-) Rs.22

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

32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing

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

32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing

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

32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35,20,32

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35,20,32

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35,20,32

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

section 11 of the Act. The return was selected for scrutiny and the A.O. assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.56,98,93628/- by denying exemption u/s.11 of the Act and making the following disallowances: (a) Development Charges VUDA Rs. 1,57,60,372/ (b) Development Charges BMC Rs. 90,94,596/- (c) Amenities fees Rs. 35,20,32