DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

3 SCC 119 (a three-Judge Bench’s decision) wherein it was observed that dismissal of special leave petition by the Supreme Court by a non-speaking order of dismissal where no reasons are given does not constitute res judicata. All that can be said to have been decided by the Court is that it was not a fit case

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

3. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 28. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of disallowance of Rs.27,02,501/- under Section 58(2) r.w.s. 40A

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

3. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 28. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of disallowance of Rs.27,02,501/- under Section 58(2) r.w.s. 40A

SHRI GIRISHBHAI VADILAL SHAH,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 330, 331 & 332/Ahd/2020 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17) िनधा"रण वष" Girishbhai Vadilal Shah Dcit बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम 139, V R Shah Smruti Circle – 4(1)(2), Vs. Shikshan Mandir, Nr. Ahmedabad Dharnidhar Derasar, Vasna, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, 380007 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abjps3102P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Jaimin Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 26/06/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 15/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: These Three Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Ahmedabad, (In Short The ‘Cit(A)’), (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) All Dated 16.03.2020 For The Assessment Year 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. As The Issues Involved In The Three Appeals Are Common, They Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Vide This Common Order.

3. That the assessee has not concealed or suppressed any particulars of income as per explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c) and as such the penalty and interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C may please be deleted.” 28. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 in respect of disallowance of Rs.27,02,501/- under Section 58(2) r.w.s. 40A

DECO MICA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE JCIT(OSD), CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Ms. Suchitra R. Kambleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Deco Mica Limited, Joint Commissioner Of 306, 3Rd Floor, Iscon Mall, Star Bazar Vs Income-Tax (Osd), Building, Jodhpur Cross Road, Circle 1(1)(2), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aaacd 8652 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, Ar Revenue By : Shri Ramesh Kumar, Sr. Dr

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of loss on sale of assets of Rs.3,35,499/-. In view of the above facts of the case, the penalty levied by the AO is confirmed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee has preferred this appeal

SPC LIFE SCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) (1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1578/Ahd/2018 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justifiable in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we delete the penalty ITA No.1578/Ahd/2018 & SPC Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years – 2012-13 & 2013-14 imposed by the authorities below. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

SPC LIFESCIENCES PRIVATE LIMITED,VADODARA vs. DCIT CIRCLE 2(1) (1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy1. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1578/Ahd/2018 2. आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1628/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2013-14)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justifiable in the given facts and circumstances. Accordingly, we delete the penalty ITA No.1578/Ahd/2018 & SPC Life Sciences Pvt.Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Years – 2012-13 & 2013-14 imposed by the authorities below. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee

TRINITY HERBO TECH,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K.WARD-2, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. The penalty proceedings are separate with the quantum proceeding. Therefore, we note that the issue raised by the assessee is premature and does not require any separate adjudication. 5. The issue raised in ground no.5 is general in nature and therefore the same does not required any separate adjudication. Accordingly, we dismiss

M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R.AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT.LTD.,,DEESA vs. THE JT.CIT, B.K.RANGE,, PALANPUR

In the result, ground number 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271 (1)(c) of the Act. 6) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the id. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad may be set-aside and the return of income of the appellant be accepted. 7) The Appellant Crave leave to add, amend, alter, vary or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal

M/S. BRIJLAXMI LEASING & FINANCE LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Smt. Madhumita Roy

3)/ the AO passed penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) levying the penalty of Rs. 10,78,000/- for the year under consideration. The appellant had filed appeal to the CIT(A)-1, Baroda against this penalty order u/s 271(1)(c) dated 20/06/2007 as passed by the AO. However, the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Baroda (i.e. my predecessor) dismissed

SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES,MUMBAI vs. JCIT 20(3), MUMBAI

In the result appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

40A(3). Therefore, all depended upon the manner of making the estimate. If it had been made in a way which covered the entire position regarding income and expenditure, naturally there would not be any scope for further deductions. 10.3 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we do not find any infirmity

ITO, S.K.WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR vs. M/S. RAMDEV PROFILES,, SABARKANTHA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Has Sustained The Disallowance Holding That Payment In Cash Was Not Covered In Any Of The Exceptions Provided In Rule 6Dd Of The It Rule.

40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions and section does not eliminate considerations of business expediencies. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision. In view of the aforesaid facts and after placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, we are of the view that

M/S. RAMDEV PROFILE,,SABARKANTHA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, S.K. WARD-2,, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A). The Ld. Cit(A) Has Sustained The Disallowance Holding That Payment In Cash Was Not Covered In Any Of The Exceptions Provided In Rule 6Dd Of The It Rule.

40A(3) is to curb and reduce the possibilities of black money transactions and section does not eliminate considerations of business expediencies. Before us, Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision. In view of the aforesaid facts and after placing reliance on the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, we are of the view that

M/S. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1,, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is filed against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs. 1,67,517/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act. I.T.A No. 2397/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No 2 M/s. Priya

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, edit, delete, change or modify all or any of the ground before or at the time of hearing. 12. At the outset, it was noticed that there was the delay in filing the CO by the assessee for 723 days. The assessee

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

40a(i). Further, penalty u/ 271(1) (c) for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was also imposed upon the assessee. On appeal before the High Court, the Revenue sought to justify the disallowance and penalty by placing reliance on Explanation 5 introduced to Section 9 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

40a(i). Further, penalty u/ 271(1) (c) for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was also imposed upon the assessee. On appeal before the High Court, the Revenue sought to justify the disallowance and penalty by placing reliance on Explanation 5 introduced to Section 9 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from

THE DCIT (EXEMPTIONS), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD vs. BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,, VADODARA

In the result, all the three appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.999/Ahd/2017 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1000/Ahd/2017 3. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1001/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 Respectively)

40a(i). Further, penalty u/ 271(1) (c) for concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income was also imposed upon the assessee. On appeal before the High Court, the Revenue sought to justify the disallowance and penalty by placing reliance on Explanation 5 introduced to Section 9 of the Act by the Finance Act, 2012 with retrospective effect from