THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

364/-, Rs. 1,72,619/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 respectively and Rs.29,300/- levied u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer

SH. BHAVESHKUMAR GANSHYAM PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case and provision of law in proper perspective. 5. The learned CIT(A)/AO erred in law and in fact in not appreciating that the Appellant has neither furnished any inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed any particulars of income and therefore penalty is not leviable

DILAWARBHAI HUSSAINBHAI KALIWALA,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DCIT, CIRLCE-1, BHAVNAGAR

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Dilawarbhai Hussainbhai The Dy.Cit Kaliwala Vs Circle-1 404-B, Jagdish Pandya Marg Bhavnagar Prabhudas Talav, Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364 001 Pan: Agcpk 2175 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shri Hiren J. Trivedi, Ca Revenue By : Ms.Pooja Parekh, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R Per Ms.Suchitra Kamble1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26/06/2019 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [“Cit(A)” In Short] For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under :- 1. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant. 2. The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred Both In Law & On The Facts In Not Adjudicating On One Of The Grounds Taken By The Appellant That Notice Issues U/S.271(1)(C) R.W.S.274 Of The Income Tax Act, As Issued By The Ld.Ao Was Invalid Ab-Initio. Dilawarbhai Hussainbhai Kaliwala Vs. Dcit Ay 2015-16

364 001 PAN: AGCPK 2175 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Shri Hiren J. Trivedi, CA Revenue by : Ms.Pooja Parekh, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 21/10/2022 आदेश/O R D E R PER MS.SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal is filed by the Assessee against

M/S. TBEA SHENYANG TRASFORMER GROUP COMPANY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INT. TAX.,, VADODARA

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2013-2014 M/S.Tbea Shenyang Transformer Dcit, International Group Company Limited Vs. Taxation Tbea Green Energy Park Vadodara. National Highway No.8 Village : Miyagam Karjan Vadodara Pan : Aadct 4557 F (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Amrin Pathan, Ar : Shri Mahesh Shah, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 29/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Arises From The Assessment Order Dated 07.11.2017 Passed By The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation, Vadodara [Hereinafter Referred To As “Assessing Officer Or Ao”], Under Section 143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For Assessment Year 2013-14 In Accordance With The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel – 2, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As “Drp”]

271(1)(c) of the Act. 9. The AO has erred in facts and in law in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271BA of the Act. 10. 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. At the very outset, the learned Authorised Representative

SHALLU BANSAL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 30/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shallu Bansal Dcit, Cent.Cir.1(3) Plot No.1497-B Vs Ahmedabad. Opp: Theosophical Lodge Rupani Circle Bhavnagar 364 001. Pan : Aijpb 8274 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B.R. Popat, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.Dr

364 001. PAN : AIJPB 8274 G अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri B.R. Popat, AR Revenue by : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 11/04/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019 O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

HONEY DEW HOLIDAY & FOREX PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DIT(I & CI), AHMEDABAD

section 271FA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2017-18. I.T.A No. 1314/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No 2 Honey Dew Holiday & Forex P. Ltd. vs. DIT(I&CI) 2. The Registry has noted that there is a delay of 189 days in filing the above appeal

SAROJBEN RAJKUMAR BANSAL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE RAJKUMAR KAKARAM BANSAL,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.306/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sarojben Rajkumar Bansal The Dy.Cit बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Circle-1 V/S. Late Shri Rajkumar Kakaram Bhavnagar – 364 001 Bansal Plot No.1497/B, Opp. Theosophical Lodge Bhavnagar, Gujarat 364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aanpb 1618 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Prithviraj Meena, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

364 001 "थायी लेखा सं./PAN: AANPB 1618 G अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, AR Revenue by : Shri Prithviraj Meena, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 08/10/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/10/2024 आदेश/O R D E R PER MAKARAND V. MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal

KUVARGIRI HIRAGIRI GOSAI,JUNAGADH vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra Kamblekuvar Giri Hiragiri Gosai The Income Tax Vs. Panch Dash Nam Juna Akhada Officer, Thana Pati Kuvar Bharthi Ward-1 (2), Guru Shri Indra Bharthi Bhavnagar – 364 002 Junagadh – 362 001

364 002 Junagadh – 362 001 [PAN: AFJPG 9919 G] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri P.B. Parmar, AR Respondent by: -None- Date of Hearing 15.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 16.01.2026 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:- This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income

SAMIR CROP HEALTH PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

penalty u/s. 271(1)(b) of the act but the assessee has not made necessary compliance during the course of assessment proceedings. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the assessing officer has issued show cause notice on 4th Jan, 2013 to the assessee to explain why not the book result should be rejected since it had I.T.A No. 462/Ahd/2015

INCOME TAX OFFICER, VEJALPUR vs. DIGITAL BIOTECH PVT. LTD., MEMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2016-17 Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, Vs A/9, Yashprabha Apartment, Ward-1(1)(3), Behind Janta Ice Cream, Ahmedabad Gurukul Road, Memnagar, Ahmedabad -380052 Pan : Aaccd 1831 B अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Bhavnasingh Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 09/05/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 17/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar:

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. While allowing the appeal, Ld. CIT (A) relied on the judgement of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in case of Motto Tiles Pvt. Ltd.(supra) and held ITO Vs. Digital Biotech Pvt. Ltd. Asst. Year : 2016-17 3 that the notice u/s 148 is not sustainable and the same

M/S. ATUL LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in the above terms for statistical purpose

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarit(Tp)A No.446/Ahd/2015 Assessment Year : 2010-11 M/S.Atul Limited Dcit, Cir.1(1)(2) Atul House Vs Ahmedabad. Gi Patel Marg Ahmedabad 380 014. Pan : Aabca 2390 M

364/-, the excess depreciation claimed of Rs.74,09,818/- was accordingly disallowed. IT(TP)A No.446/Ahd/2015 18 45. We have gone through the order of the ITAT in the case of the assessee pertaining to Asst.Year 2009-10 in IT(TP) No.1108/Ahd/2017 dated 12.7.2022, and we find that identical issue was dealt by the ITAT at para

HARPREET KAUR KAUSHIK MANEK,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT., CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 3. The assessee has not filed any return of income and the letter was issued through system on 04.08.2014, which was not responded as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order. As per the information, the reasons were recorded and subsequently the case was reopened under Section

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 9. We have heard the submissions of the Ld Counsel for the assessee Sri. Mehul K. Patel and perused the materials available on record including

SAKETKUMAR RUGNATH TANNA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the assessee appeal in ITA

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 16. Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal. 9. We have heard the submissions of the Ld Counsel for the assessee Sri. Mehul K. Patel and perused the materials available on record including