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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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 capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

THE ACIT, PANCHMAHAL CIRCLE,, GODHRA vs. MS. GRISHMABEN M. SOLANKI,, PANCHMAHAL

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

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Years : 2012-13 Assistant Commissioner Of Ms. Grishmaben M. Solanki, Income-Tax, Vs Rajmahal Road, Devgarh Baria, Panchmahal Circle, Panchmahal, Gujarat-389380 Godhra Pan : Cyops 3860 E अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri C.S. Sharma, Sr. Dr Assessee By : None सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 15/02/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 16/02/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per P.M. Jagtap, Vice-: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-4, Vadodara (“Cit(A)” In Short) Dated 20.09.2017 Whereby He Cancelled The Penalty Of Rs.56,56,420/- Imposed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” In Short).

50C deemed sale consideration at higher sum, in absence of any iota of evidence that assessee had received more amount than that shown by it, penalty under Section 271(1)(c) was not leviable. The assessee can challenge the view of the A.O. if there is a dispute in the valuation adopt during the course of assessment proceedings. The fact

MS. VARSHA JITENDRA TEKWANI,,BARODA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(4), BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1623/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Ms Varsha Jitendra Tekwani, Income-Tax Officer, Flat No.302, Vs. Ward-3(1)(4), Jay Ranchod Avenue, Vadodara. Harni-Varasiya Ring Road, Vadodara.

50C by the AO and on that addition penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act was levied. However, in the instant case the assessee has not at all offered Liny long term capital gain on sale of the property in its return of income. The issue of Long Term Capital Gain came to light only because of scrutiny assessment

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing it in limine without considering the ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 7. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(A), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in refusing to condone the delay in filing the appeal and thereby dismissing it in limine without considering the ITA Nos.158 & 159/Ahd/2023 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel vs. ITO Asst. Year

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

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

penalty proceedings U/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified 4.1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Bandish Soparkar appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed in the case is barred by time, because the reference made by the Assessing Officer under section 142A is bad and illegal and cannot claim extension of time under section 153 Explanation

SHRI CHINUBHAI AMBALAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

penalty of Rs.4,50,383/- levied u/s 271(1)(c). 3. To adjudicate on this appeal only a few material facts need to be taken note of. The assessee has filed his return of income on 13th October 2010 declaring total income at Rs.15,86,662/- and agricultural income at Rs.35,500/-. On scrutiny of the accounts it was revealed

SHRENIK HIRALAL SHAH,VADODARA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(3), VADODARA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition made on account of long-term capital gain under section 50C

SATTARBHAI SULEMANBHAI MANSURI,SABARKANTHA vs. THE ITO, WARD-3, HIMATNAGAR

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-15 Mr.Sattarbhai Sulemanbhai Mansuri Ito,Ward-3 Anjumarstrit Narth Gulam Floor Factri Vs. Himatnagar. Sarvoday Soc, Polo Ground Himatnagar Sabarkantha 383 001. (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Varis Isani, Advocate Assessee By : Shri Ravindra, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/05/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted that actual consideration received was only Rs.5,00,000/- (1/5th of Rs.25 lakhs) which was declared in the return of income , the property was sold to a community trust and the assessee had specifically requested

NARAYANBHAI SHIVABHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2020-21

271(1)(c) of the Act which are not found relevant to decide the issue before us. Only the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Bombay Tribunal in the case of Alrameez Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT/NFAC, 152 taxmann.com 382 (Mumbai- Trib.) is found to be in the context of penalty under Section 270A of the Act for under-reporting

SHRI VINIT C. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-10(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

271(l)(c) could be validly imposed in this case, as per various decisions of the different High Courts in this behalf. Assessment Year : 2009-10 Page 3 of 6 6) There is no variation in the actual sale price of the land realized, by the appellant and his co-owners. The A.O. and the CIT (A) have adopted Jantri

SMT. DAXABEN ANILKUMAR THAKKAR,,BARODA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, BARODA

In the result appeal of the assessee allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1936/Ahd/2018 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Smt Daxaben Anilkumar Thakkar, D.C.I.T., 55, Gandhi Gunj, Vs. Central Circle-2, Near Borsad Bus Stand, Baroda. Borsad-388540. Pan: Aaqpt3444B

271(1)(c) of the Act, for concealment of income. 3.1 In response, the assessee submitted that he has not received anything over and above the sale consideration received. Hence there is no any concealment of income. Accordingly the assessee claimed he has not concealed income and there should not be penalty for addition made under deeming provision. The assessee