MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS PVE. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is Dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 641/Ahd/2017 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1311/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2010-2011 Mobile Telecommunications Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T., C/O. Ambalal M. Shah & Co., Vs. Circle-2(1)(2), Chartered Accountants, Baroda. 108, Bell-E-Vista Complex, Race Course Chakli Circle, Vadodara-390007. Pan: Aaccm2659J

penalty order passed under s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here- in-after referred to as "the Act") relevant to the Assessment Year 2009-2010 and ITA No. 1311/Ahd/2016 is arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relevant to the Assessment Year

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee, and in an ex parte order penalty of Rs.8,09,40,722/- was imposed vide order dated 28.9.2015. Appeal against this order was presented after expiry of limitation by 27 months. In order to explain the delay, the ITA No.27 and 28/Ahd/2019 4 assessee has filed explanation which

SHRIRAM TUBES PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT.,CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, subject to payment of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradipkumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.27 & 28/Ahd/2019 [Asstt.Year: 2007-08]

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was initiated against the assessee, and in an ex parte order penalty of Rs.8,09,40,722/- was imposed vide order dated 28.9.2015. Appeal against this order was presented after expiry of limitation by 27 months. In order to explain the delay, the ITA No.27 and 28/Ahd/2019 4 assessee has filed explanation which

M/S. CHECKMATE FACILITY & ELECTRONIC SOLUTION PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty was called for u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. In response, the Ld. DR submitted that the matter has got finality by the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC)/[2023] 290 Taxman

CHAROTAR GAS SAHKARI MANDALI LTD.,ANAND vs. THE DY. CIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year 2012-13

penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act in case of the appellant for AY 2012-13. 2. The appellant reserves the right to add/alter or amend any of the ground of appeal.” 3. The assessee filed return of income on 11-09-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 16,72,93,060/-. The case was selected

M/S INDU NISSAN OXO CHEMICALS INDS. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2150/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2006-2007

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.1 The assessee in response to the notice issued u/s 274 of the Act made reply dated 14th July 2014. The details of the reply stand as under; a. The auditor of the company missed giving the effect of the amendment brought

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

43B for customs duty actually paid during the year. The AO has not observed anything whether this customs duty was actually paid in the previous year or not and he has disallowed this claim by only relying upon the legal issues that after introduction of Sec. 145(91) of the IT Act, the assessee is not entitled for deduction

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

43B for customs duty actually paid during the year. The AO has not observed anything whether this customs duty was actually paid in the previous year or not and he has disallowed this claim by only relying upon the legal issues that after introduction of Sec. 145(91) of the IT Act, the assessee is not entitled for deduction

DHOLU CONSTRUCTION & PROJECTS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© of the Act is unjustified. 25. Now we come to ground no. 1 regarding that ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming allocation of common expenses totaling unconnected in the nature of bank commission, interest, stationary/printing, travelling professional fees & oil/lubricant expenses to wind mill project thereby restricting deduction u/s. 80IA

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. GUJARAT INDUSTRIAL POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in generation of power in the form of electricity. During Asst. Year 2006-07, assessee filed its return of income on 30.12.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,78,43,82,629/-. The return of income

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1),, BARODA vs. GUJARAT INDUSTRIES POWER CO.LTD.,, BARODA

In the result, the captioned appeals are

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961.” 5. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is engaged in generation of power in the form of electricity. During Asst. Year 2006-07, assessee filed its return of income on 30.12.2006 declaring total income of Rs.1,78,43,82,629/-. The return of income

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

UNICURE REMEDIES PVT. LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA

In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

penalty order passed under section 271(1)(c) was also liable to be quashed - Held, yes [Paras 2.10 and 2.11] [In favour of assesses]” 12. Since our bench has already given relief to some pharmaceutical company, therefore, we allow this ground of appeal. 13. Now we come to ITA No. 2599/Ahd/2016 for A.Y. 2012-13 and confirming the disallowance

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

SANGHVI FORGING & ENGG.LTD.,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings U/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. 7. The levy of interest U/s 234A/B/C of the Act is not justified. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter and/or amend the grounds hereinabove taken. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the order