GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

M/S. SAVALIYA BUILDCON,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

69B r.w.s. 147 on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land. Search was conducted in the case of son of vendor from whom the land was purchased. During the course of search, son of vendor stated that assessee had received consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. AO reopened assessment and made addition on the basis of this information. It was held

SAVALIYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

69B r.w.s. 147 on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land. Search was conducted in the case of son of vendor from whom the land was purchased. During the course of search, son of vendor stated that assessee had received consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. AO reopened assessment and made addition on the basis of this information. It was held

GHANSHYAMBHAI KANUBHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 3,40,851/- for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us at the outset, the ld. counsel contended that on identical facts and similar issue penalty levied in the case of co-owner was deleted by the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act." Similarly, in CIT Vs Berry Plastics (P) Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 39 (Guj.), it was held that in respect of valuation of land and building, DVO's report may b4 a useful tool in hands of Assessing Officer, nevertheless, it is an estimation and without there being anything more

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act." Similarly, in CIT Vs Berry Plastics (P) Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 39 (Guj.), it was held that in respect of valuation of land and building, DVO's report may b4 a useful tool in hands of Assessing Officer, nevertheless, it is an estimation and without there being anything more

THE ITO, WARD-1,, ANAND vs. M/S. DEVRAJ DEVELOPERS,, ANAND

In the result, appeal of the revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 1524 To 1526/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2009-10 To 2011-12)

penalty imposed under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act." Similarly, in CIT Vs Berry Plastics (P) Ltd. (2013) 217 Taxman 39 (Guj.), it was held that in respect of valuation of land and building, DVO's report may b4 a useful tool in hands of Assessing Officer, nevertheless, it is an estimation and without there being anything more

SMT. RASHIDABEN TAHER MORAWALA,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, INT.-TAXA., BARODA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

penalty proceedings U/s 271(1) (c) of the Act is not justified 4.1. Ld. Counsel Mr. Bandish Soparkar appearing for the assessee submitted that the assessment order passed in the case is barred by time, because the reference made by the Assessing Officer under section 142A is bad and illegal and cannot claim extension of time under section 153 Explanation

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

section 69B of the Act. 46. At the outset we note that the issues raised by the Revenue in its ground of appeal for the AY 2013-14 are identical to the issues raised by the Revenue in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 for the assessment year 2012-13. Therefore, the findings given in ITA No. 2130/AHD/2017 shall also be applicable

SHRI NAVINCHANDRA N. PATEL,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

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

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.” Shri Navinchandra N Patel Vs. ACIT Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 3– 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of "Trading of Land for project Development & in shares". The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration

AMBUJA GINNING PRESSING & OIL CO. P. LTD.,,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, BHAVNAGAR

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

Bench: Us, The Ld. Counsel Has Brought To Our Notice That The Quantum Addition On The Basis Of Which The Impugned Penalty Was Levied Had Been Adjudicated By The Itat Vide Ita No. 3618/Ahd/2015 Order Dated 04-10-2018 & The Addition On Account Of Unaccounted Income On The Basis Of Which The Penalty Was Levied Was Restored To The File Of The Assessing Officer For Re-Adjudication. The Ld. Departmental Representative Was Fair Enough Not To Controvert These Facts. Considering The Above Facts & The Order Of The Co-Ordinate Bench Of The Itat Vide Which The Quantum Addition Was Set Aside To The File Of Assessing Officer For Deciding The Issue Afresh , We Restore This Issue Also To The File Of Assessing Officer For Deciding Afresh On The Basis Of Set Aside Proceedings On Quantum Addition.

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in levying penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of Rs. 17,92,000/- on account of non-disclosure of additional income

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

69B of the Act for the alleged unexplained investments i.e. to the extent of Rs. 24,45,842/- for construction of Sqaminarayan Farm residence and to the extent of Rs. 28,55,728/- in construction ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003-04 of Hotel Neelkanth out of the total addition made

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI UMANG H. THAKKAR, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

69B of the Act for the alleged unexplained investments i.e. to the extent of Rs. 24,45,842/- for construction of Sqaminarayan Farm residence and to the extent of Rs. 28,55,728/- in construction ITA Nos.2406&2407/Ahd/2008 & 04 others DCIT vs. Shri Umang H. Thakkar Asst.Years –2001-02to2003-04 of Hotel Neelkanth out of the total addition made