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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. While making the additions, the ITAT made the following observations

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

63,250/= is required\nto be taxed u/s.69A in line with section 115BBE of the Act and also\ninitiated penalty proceeding u/s.271AAC[1] of the Act but\nerroneously issued penalty notice u/s.271[1][c] of the Act, which is\nerroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and\nthereby setaside the notice issued u/s.274 rws 271

INDIAN CHRONICLE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

63,544/- in the book profit and accordingly determined the tax payable by the assessee. As the book profit of the assessee was higher than the normal profit, tax was computed on the book profit. The AO also initiated penalty proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income in respect of computation of book

SUNDEK INDIA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

penalty of Rs. 1,63,19,220/-u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act.” 6. On this issue, we are guided by the following judgments: 1) Karnataka High Court: CIT vs. Manjunatha Cotton and Ginning Factory: 359 ITR 565 held that notice under section

SHASHI JIVANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2018 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.9,27,896/- on the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

SHASHI JIVANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 271(1)(c) of the Act dated 27.03.2018 was passed imposing penalty of Rs.9,27,896/- on the assessee. 6. Aggrieved with the penalty order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee had filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which was decided by the CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

63,534/- was made to the total income on account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

YOGESH JASHUBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4) NOW WARD- 1(2)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal1. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.158/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 2. आयकर अपील सं /Ita No.159/Ahd/2023, Asst.Year 2011-12 Yogesh Jashubhai Patel, The Income Tax Officer Harivallabh Society बनाम/ Ward-3(4) V/S. Naroda Now Ward-1(2)(1) Opp. Devi Cinema Ahmedabad – 380 051 Ahmedabad – 382 345 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Audpp 9058 L (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/09/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 06/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeals Have Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 06/01/2023 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2011-2012. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No.158/Ahd/2023:

63,534/- was made to the total income on account of understatement of LTCG. The AO assessed the income at Rs. 6,19,780/-. The AO also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals

MARUTI INFRASTRUCTURE LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), , AHMEDABAD

In the result, ground of appeal raised by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2013-14. I.T.A No. 1633/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 2 Maruti Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. DCIT 2. Brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a Limited Company engaged in Real Estate Development, Builder

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PINAC STOCK BROKERS PRIVATE LIMITED, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Dr.Brr Kumar & Shri T.R Senthil Kumar

u/s. 271(1)(c) levied by the Assessing Officer does not survive despite the fact that the decision of Hon’ble ITAT has been challenged and an appeal was filed before Hon’ble Gujarat High Court”. 3. Ld. CIT-DR appearing for the Revenue submitted that the present appeal filed by the Revenue only to keep the matter alive, since

SH. BHAVESHKUMAR GANSHYAM PATEL,VADODARA, GUJARAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(2)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA, GUJARAT

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Shri Bhaveshkumar Ganshyam Patel Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) 446 Patel Faliya Vs. Vadodara. Moti Khadaki, Tb Sanatorium So Vadodara, Gujarat. Pan : Aunpp 1026 C (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Ms.Nikhita Bhamblani, Ca & Shri Virat Bhavsar, Ar : Ms.Urvashi Mandhan, Sr.Dr. Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16/06/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: /06/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

63,23,857/-, wherein assessee's 1/3rd share worked out to Rs.3,87,74,619/-. Upon issuing notice u/s 133(6) on 07.02.2020, the assessee furnished a revised computation based on a new valuation report, offering long-term capital gains of Rs.89,36,585/-. The AO, not satisfied with both valuation reports submitted by the assessee (by Mr. B.H. Patel

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1)(1), VADODARA

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

section 271(1)(c), the CIT(Appeals) held that the same was premature and did not call for adjudication at this stage. The remaining ground being general in nature was also dismissed. 12. Accordingly, the CIT(Appeals) held that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden of proof and had also not cooperated during appellate proceedings. Relying on judicial