INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(3) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. NITINBHAI KANUBHAI PATEL, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2016-2017 Ito, Ward-4(2)(3) Shri Nitinbhai Kanubhai Patel Ahmedabad. Vs. Room No.303, 3Rd Floor Aaykar Bhavan Vejalpur, Ahmedabad. Pan : Aaspp 5802 F (Applicant) (Responent) : None Assessee By : Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/10/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 14/10/2025

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 2.8 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed detailed statement of facts challenging the findings of the Assessing Officer. The assessee contended that the land was agricultural and had been used for agricultural

SMT. ANJANABEN NARENDRAKUMAR PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

54B of the act as the assessee has failed to fulfill any condition as envisaged u/s. 54F of the act. The assessing officer has disallowed the claim of deduction u/s. 54F of Rs. 95 lacs on the ground that assessee has purchased one residential property and has also constructed one house property in violation of condition mentioned in sub-section

SMT. MONAZ BURZIN MYSOREWALA,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4),, BARODA

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

Bench: Shrio. P. Meena & Mrs. Madhumita Roy

Penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) dated 22.03.2016 respectively under Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) by the Income Tax Officer, Ward- 8(4) Vadodara (in short “the AO”). 2. First we take up quantum appeal in I.T.A.No. 1335/AHD/2015/AY 2011-12 3. The assessee has taken 11 number of grounds of appeals which mainly relates to confirming addition

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(4), BARODA vs. SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has, alongwith a co-owner, sold agricultural land on 30.03.2012. The sale deed showed the sale

SHRI NATWARBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(4), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. To adjudicate on this appeal, a few material facts need to be taken note of. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee has, alongwith a co-owner, sold agricultural land on 30.03.2012. The sale deed showed the sale

SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Learned representatives agree that whatever we decide in the case of co- owner, i.e. Shri Natwarbhai J Patel, whose appeals were also heard along these appeals, will apply, mutatis mutandis, in the case of this assessee as well. 4. Vide our order of even date

THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(5), VADODARA vs. SHRI VINODBHAI J. PATEL, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes in the terms indicated above

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. Learned representatives agree that whatever we decide in the case of co- owner, i.e. Shri Natwarbhai J Patel, whose appeals were also heard along these appeals, will apply, mutatis mutandis, in the case of this assessee as well. 4. Vide our order of even date

SAURABHBHAI ROHITBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 9. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the first appellate authority, the assessee challenged both the validity of the reopening under sections 147 and 148 of the Act as well as the addition on merits

ROHITKUMAR CHINUBHAI MODI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIR. 5(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) were also initiated separately. 9. Aggrieved by the reassessment order, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Before the first appellate authority, the assessee challenged both the validity of the reopening under sections 147 and 148 of the Act as well as the addition on merits

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SMT. ANJANABEN NARENDRAKUMAR PATEL,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1287/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Acit Smt. Anjanaben बनाम/ Narendrakumar Patel Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad Vs. C/203, Utsav Residency, 1St Floor, C.U. Shah Bldg., Opp. Vijaya Bank, New Ashram Road, Ahmedabad- C.G. Road, Chandkheda, 380009 Ahmedabad-382424 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Awf Pp4 964 R .. (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the Revenue reads as under:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs. 40,74,010/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the disallowance of deduction claimed