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

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

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

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,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

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

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

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 8. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the Goodwill arose was allocated to Dehradun and Sikkim Units, which are part and parcel of the transferor company and after amalgamation depreciation claimed on goodwill

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

32(1), section 49(1)(iii)(e), explanation 2 to section 43(6) and section 55(2). 8. Whether the CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the Goodwill arose was allocated to Dehradun and Sikkim Units, which are part and parcel of the transferor company and after amalgamation depreciation claimed on goodwill

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

32. The learned AR before us submitted that the purchases were made by the assessee at the prevailing market rate which was certainly fluctuating according to the market forces and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the revenue has not brought anything on record evidencing that the assessee has made purchases at a price higher

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

32. The learned AR before us submitted that the purchases were made by the assessee at the prevailing market rate which was certainly fluctuating according to the market forces and therefore no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Furthermore, the revenue has not brought anything on record evidencing that the assessee has made purchases at a price higher

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