SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54. Ground Nos 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 55. In the result Ground No. 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 56. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal that Ld. AO did not record mandatory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54. Ground Nos 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 55. In the result Ground No. 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 56. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal that Ld. AO did not record mandatory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54. Ground Nos 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 55. In the result Ground No. 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 56. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal that Ld. AO did not record mandatory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54. Ground Nos 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 55. In the result Ground No. 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 56. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal that Ld. AO did not record mandatory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

54. Ground Nos 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal are general in nature and do not require any specific adjudication. 55. In the result Ground No. 3 and 5 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 56. Ground No. 4 of the assessee’s appeal that Ld. AO did not record mandatory satisfaction for initiating penalty proceedings u/s

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.

54 where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,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.

54 where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,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.

54 where penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 5,14,370/- and unexplained cash credit. 36. The assessee declared the income in the return filed under section 153A of the Act Rs. 1,54

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 5,14,370/- and unexplained cash credit. 36. The assessee declared the income in the return filed under section 153A of the Act Rs. 1,54

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 5,14,370/- and unexplained cash credit. 36. The assessee declared the income in the return filed under section 153A of the Act Rs. 1,54

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 5,14,370/- and unexplained cash credit. 36. The assessee declared the income in the return filed under section 153A of the Act Rs. 1,54

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon:ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT VsBennet Coleman & Co Ltd 215 Taxman 93 wherein it is held as under: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income [Bona fide claim, disallowance of] - Assessment year

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

54 - He also passed a penalty order under section 271(1)(c) for raising a patently false claim of deduction - Whether, on facts, Impugned penalty order did not require any interference - Held, yes [Para 5] [In favour of revenue] " The Hon'ble Mumbai ITAT after considering the decision of Reliance Petrochemicals relied upon by appellant has further held as under

DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. ADANI ENTERPRISES LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalassessment Year : 2009-10 Dcit, M/S. Adani Enterprises Ltd., Circle 1(1)(1), Vs Adani House, Nr. Mithakhali Ahmedabad Six Roads, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad - 380009 Pan : Aabca 2804 L अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Revenue By : Shri Mohd. Usman, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Vartik Choksi, Ar & Shri Biren Shah, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/05/2022

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on this issue. The Ld. CIT(A) also confirmed the addition made by the A.O. on this issue. From the above facts, it is clear that the assessee had furnished concealment of income in respect of above issues. Had the assessee's case not been selected for scrutiny, the assessee

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

54-G found debatable. The Said agreement was made before Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax with clear understanding that penalty proceedings would not be initiated. Paid Rs. 25,91,680/- on 15-03-2016. Order u/s 263 is dated 16-03-2016. Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 263 is dated 30-08-2016. Submission Devendra Narendrabhai Thakker vs. ACIT Asst.Year

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

54,77,374/- namely [a] on benchmarking of provision of services rendered to Associate Enterprise of Rs.67,96,987/- and [b] Corporate Guarantee given to AE of Rs.86,80,387/-. 2.2. As the assessee has not chosen to challenge the TPO’s order before Dispute Resolution Panel, therefore the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s