DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act was deleted by the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in IT(SS)A No. 45/Ahd/2020 and ITA No. 204/Ahd/2020. The relevant extracts of the ruling are reproduced for ready reference: “12. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are not in consonance with the Rule 8 of the Income Tax (Appellate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. We do not find infirmity in the order passed by the Ld CIT [A]. I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 12 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority 13.1. As against the quantum appeal common order passed by the co-ordinate

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

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) holding that the issue has been decided in favour of appellant by the Hon’ble ITAT, consequential penalty u/s.271

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

51,003/- was initiated for ‘concealment of income’ u/s 271(1)(c) and addition of Rs.5,30,180/- was initiated for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. In the assessment order, in paragraph No.6, it has only initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’; and when the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. u/s 271

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

51,003/- was initiated for ‘concealment of income’ u/s 271(1)(c) and addition of Rs.5,30,180/- was initiated for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. In the assessment order, in paragraph No.6, it has only initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’; and when the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. u/s 271

ISMAILBHAI SAVDIBHAI HIRA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member

51,003/- was initiated for ‘concealment of income’ u/s 271(1)(c) and addition of Rs.5,30,180/- was initiated for ‘furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income’. In the assessment order, in paragraph No.6, it has only initiated penalty u/s 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 for ‘furnishing inaccurate particulars of income’; and when the notice u/s 274 r.w.s. u/s 271