SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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:

section 144 of the Act was completed determining the loss at (-)Rs.11,72,67,828/-. That assessment was challenged before this Tribunal and the case was set-aside vide order dated 01.08.2014 in ITA No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 and accordingly assessment was finalized u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 254 of the Act and the total loss was determined at (-) Rs.22

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

u/s 10(38)of the Act of Long Term Capital Gain from sale of equity shares deserves to be allowed and no addition is called for the estimated brokerage expenses made in the hands of the assessee(s). Thus finding of Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the Grounds raised by the assessee(s) in ITA Nos.889/Ind/2018, 474/Ind/2019, 206/Ind/2019

MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

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

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1633/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in Real Estate Development, Builder

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(1)(c) of the Act even though the quantum appeal had not yet been decided by him. 35. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. In the interest of justice, we hereby restore the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for de-novo consideration and he may take up the appeal

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

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under