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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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 of the Act and LTCG arising thereof has to be determined accordingly for the purpose of computation of income, which clearly says that whatever difference is there is concealed income and leviable for penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. ACIT Vs. Grishmaben M. Solanki AY : 2012-13 5 5. At the time of hearing fixed

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.

5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to the learned CIT (A). 5.1 The assessee before the learned CIT (A) inter-alia submitted that the addition was made for long-term capital gain under the provisions of section 50C of the Act which is a deeming provision and therefore there cannot be any penalty upon the assessee. 6. The learned

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:

5 penalty orders lying in his post box, following which he immediately consulted a tax consultant and filed the appeal. The CIT(A), however, held that the explanation furnished was not sufficient to justify the inordinate delay of over seven years and eight months in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not provide

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:

5 penalty orders lying in his post box, following which he immediately consulted a tax consultant and filed the appeal. The CIT(A), however, held that the explanation furnished was not sufficient to justify the inordinate delay of over seven years and eight months in filing the appeal before him. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not provide

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

In the result, appeal is allowed

5 2.1 The ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in confirming the penalty of Rs.4,50,383/- levied u/s 271(1)(c) in respect of addition of Rs.21,39,294/- made towards long term capital gain and receipt of Rs.15,750/- from Astha Buildcon. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case

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

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

5) The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in levying a 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

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

u/s 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

u/s 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