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 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 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

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

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

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

2 Rs.161,59,58,333/- after making various additions/disallowances. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated by the Assessing Officer in respect of certain additions/disallowances made in the assessment. Meanwhile, an appeal was filed by the assessee in quantum proceedings against the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C

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

section 274 does not clearly specify the charge based on which, the penalty proceeding are initiated, the penalty proceedings needs to be quashed since there is no application mind by the Learned AO.” 3. The brief fact of the case is this that the assessee engaged in the business of dealing in construction, telecom & infrastructure work filed its return

THE MAHALAXMI CREDIT CO. OP. SOCIETY LTD.,,KHEDA vs. THE ITO, WARD- 3,, NADIAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(l)(c) rws 274 of the Act initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. [Disallowance Rs.19,49,051]" 4. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty levied of Rs.51,73,081/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed these additions/disallowances. (a) Clam of Short Term capital loss Rs. 21,87,518/- (b) Payments to Axis PE for due diligence Rs.41,54,372/- (c) Dead Stock Rs.6,23,810/- (d) Disallowance u/s 40(a) Rs.4