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

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

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 148 of the Act and finally levied penalty of Rs. 12,42,609/- being 100% of the amount tax sought to be evaded. 34.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 34.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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 148 of the Act and finally levied penalty of Rs. 12,42,609/- being 100% of the amount tax sought to be evaded. 34.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 34.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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 148 of the Act and finally levied penalty of Rs. 12,42,609/- being 100% of the amount tax sought to be evaded. 34.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 34.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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:

36(1)(iii) of the Act as business expenditure Therefore AO has disallowed of interest expenses on investment amounting to Rs. 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

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

36. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 49,52,688/- only. 37. The facts in brief are that the assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act wherein certain additions were

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

36. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 49,52,688/- only. 37. The facts in brief are that the assessee was subject to scrutiny assessment under section 143(3) of the Act wherein certain additions were

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. Additional Ground of Appeal The Appellant humbly submits that the following additional grounds of appeal which is purely of legal nature may kindly be admitted. In law and in the facts

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

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Each of the above ground is independent and without prejudice to the other grounds of appeal preferred by the Appellant. Additional Ground of Appeal The Appellant humbly submits that the following additional grounds of appeal which is purely of legal nature may kindly be admitted. In law and in the facts

CHARTERED SPEED LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

36(1)(iii) wherein Chandigarh Bench of ITAT in M/s. Jain Shawis & Textile Mills vs. ACIT in ITA No. 822/Chd/2015 dated 16-03-2016 cancelled the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Similarly in the case of ACIT vs. M/s. Vyanjan Hotel Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5257/MUM/2016 dated 31-12-2018 and Delhi Tribunal

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

36,25,808/- on these purchase transactions on the ground that appellant has failed to maintain the documents specified in Section 92D r.w.r. 10D. Similar penalty has been levied for all the remaining years. The appellant has raised similar line of arguments which are dealt with in subsequent paras. … … … … 5.4 It is observed that the TPO has passed order under

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

36,25,808/- on these purchase transactions on the ground that appellant has failed to maintain the documents specified in Section 92D r.w.r. 10D. Similar penalty has been levied for all the remaining years. The appellant has raised similar line of arguments which are dealt with in subsequent paras. … … … … 5.4 It is observed that the TPO has passed order under