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

56,000/- and after allowing deduction of Rs. 46,800/- u/s. 24 of the Act, added an amount of Rs. 1,09,200/- under the head income from house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

56,000/- and after allowing deduction of Rs. 46,800/- u/s. 24 of the Act, added an amount of Rs. 1,09,200/- under the head income from house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

56,000/- and after allowing deduction of Rs. 46,800/- u/s. 24 of the Act, added an amount of Rs. 1,09,200/- under the head income from house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

56,000/- and after allowing deduction of Rs. 46,800/- u/s. 24 of the Act, added an amount of Rs. 1,09,200/- under the head income from house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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

56,000/- and after allowing deduction of Rs. 46,800/- u/s. 24 of the Act, added an amount of Rs. 1,09,200/- under the head income from house property. The ld. Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee

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.

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

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.

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

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

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act. I, therefore, levy a minimum penalty @ 100% of the amount of tax sought to be evaded on account of filing of inaccurate particulars of income, which works out to Rs. 3,85,614/-, against the maximum penalty of Rs. 11,56,842/- on the assessee.” In appeal, the Learned

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

section 36(2) of the Act have not been complied with and hence the same was disallowed and added back to the total income. Penalty proceedings u/s, 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on this issue. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed Rs. 5,02,181/- out of the total addition made by the A.O. on this issue

SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” ITA No. 1643/Ahd2017 filed by Revenue 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI JIGAR JASHWANTLAL SHAH, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” ITA No. 1643/Ahd2017 filed by Revenue 3. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal

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).

56,420/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act being the amount equivalent to the 100% of the tax sought to be evaded by the assessee. The Assessing Officer also took into consideration of the fact that the addition made by him in the assessment proceedings on account of Long Term Capital Gain was accepted by the assessee

M/S. RAJESH MALLEABLES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-3(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result the levy of the penalty for an amount of Rs

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 347/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-13 M/S. Rajesh Malleables Ltd., Income-Tax Officer, C/O. Anuj Mehta, Vs. Ward-3(1)(3), Nandanvan Opp. Shapath Iv, Ahmedabad. Nr.Karnavati Club, S.G. Highway, Ahmedabad.

section 292B of the Act. 3) In law and on facts as well as in the circumstances of the assessee's case, the Ld.CIT (A) has further erred in deriving support from Sec.292B of the Act in rejecting ground no. I & 2 of the appeal that too without dealing with the two relied judgments of the jurisdictional high court

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

56,168/-, Rs. 9,364/-, Rs. 1,72,619/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 respectively and Rs.29,300/- levied u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

56,168/-, Rs. 9,364/-, Rs. 1,72,619/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 respectively and Rs.29,300/- levied u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI RAGHUBHAI B.VAGHELA, AHMEDABAD

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is also allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Manish Boradsn It(Ss)A/Ita No. Ay Appellant Respondent 2004-05 Acit, Shri Raghubhai B. Vaghela, 1034/Ahd/2013 Central Circle 1 (4), 8, Riddhi Siddhi Bunglows, Ahmedabad Sanand, Ahmedabad-382210 Pan : Afgpv 8496 N 2009-10 Revenue Assessee 1035/Ahd/2013 2010-11 Revenue Assessee 1036/Ahd/2013 4 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 153/Ahd/2014 5 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 154/Ahd/2014 6 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 155/Ahd/2014 7 It(Ss)A No. 2004-05 Assessee Revenue 36/Ahd/2016 8 It(Ss)A No. 2005-06 Assessee Revenue 37/Ahd/2016 9 It(Ss)A No. 2009-10 Assessee Revenue 38/Ahd/2016 10 It(Ss)A No. 2010-11 Assessee Revenue 39/Ahd/2016 Revenue By : Ms. Vibha Bhalla, Cit-Dr Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 03/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per Bench :

56,168/-, Rs. 9,364/-, Rs. 1,72,619/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for AY 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2009-10 respectively and Rs.29,300/- levied u/s. 271AAA of the Act for AY 2010-11. 14. First we take-up the appeals of the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) confirming the penalty levied

SHRI VITTHALBHAI GORDHANBHAI PRAJAPATI,,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysl. Ita No(S) Asset. Appeal(S) By No(S Year(S) Appellant Vs. Respondent ) Appellant Respondent 1. 04/Ahd/2018 2008-09 Vithalbhai Gordhanbhai D.C.I.T Prajapati, 9, Central Circle- Abbhikaram Complex, 1(2) Ahmedabad Near Bhaikaka Nagar, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Pan: Afzpp0251L

penalty proceedings on the difference of the income of Rs. 5,56,110.00 disclosed in the income tax return filed under section 139(1) and declared in return filed under section 153A of the Act by issuing a notice under section 274/271(1)(c) of the Act to the assessee on account of concealment of income vide dated

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.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income. Thus the appellant tails on this ground. 7. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7.1 The assessee in the ground of appeal submitted that she has received consideration of ₹11 Lacs only against the amount alleged