WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s 271(1)(c). 38. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 39. The learned AR before us submitted that the assessee has neither furnished inaccurate particulars of income nor concealed the particulars of income. Therefore, there cannot be levied any penalty under the provisions of section 271

DCIT CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

70,74,300/- in its bank account maintained with DENA Bank. It was observed during the enquiry by the ITO (I&CI), Ahmedabad that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The Information regarding the violation was passed on to the Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad. As per information, it was found that

DCIT, CIRCLE GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI UMIYA CO OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD LINCH, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

70,74,300/- in its bank account maintained with DENA Bank. It was observed during the enquiry by the ITO (I&CI), Ahmedabad that the assessee had violated the provisions of section 269SS and 269T of the Act. The Information regarding the violation was passed on to the Pr. CIT-3, Ahmedabad. As per information, it was found that

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20- 10-2016 has not categorically mentioned under which limb of section 271(1)(C) the penalty was imposed. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 16,08,70

MADHU SILICA PVT. LTD.,BHAVNAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal being ITA No

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleita Nos. 701 & 702/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2014-15

u/s. 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 20- 10-2016 has not categorically mentioned under which limb of section 271(1)(C) the penalty was imposed. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the assessee claimed deduction of Rs. 16,08,70

TEJAS GHANSHYAMBHAI PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty of Rs.1,70,414/- u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Act. 2. That on facts, in law, and on evidence on record, it ought to have been held that there is neither concealment of income inaccurate particulars nor furnishing of income within the meaning of section

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

70,35,635/-, the net surplus of Rs. 2,04,24,335/- was claimed by the assessee as exempt agricultural income under section 10(1). The AO, however, treated the entire surplus as business income. It was held that the the pattern of purchase and sale of land indicated a profit motive and constituted an adventure in the nature

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

70,35,635/-, the net surplus of Rs. 2,04,24,335/- was claimed by the assessee as exempt agricultural income under section 10(1). The AO, however, treated the entire surplus as business income. It was held that the the pattern of purchase and sale of land indicated a profit motive and constituted an adventure in the nature

NIRANJANBHAI D. PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokar

70,35,635/-, the net surplus of Rs. 2,04,24,335/- was claimed by the assessee as exempt agricultural income under section 10(1). The AO, however, treated the entire surplus as business income. It was held that the the pattern of purchase and sale of land indicated a profit motive and constituted an adventure in the nature

GOPALLAL BHERUBHAI KUMAVAT,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(2)(2), AHMEDABAD , AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12

penalty levied of Rs.3,96,596/- on addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits of Rs.17,70,150/- u/s. 69 of Income tax Act. It is submitted that the Appellant has filed complete details and documentary evidences before lower authorities during quantum proceedings duly justifying above cash deposits made as business receipts. It is therefore settled law that mere

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

HAJIMOHMADSAFI ABDULREHMAN SHAIKH,VADODARA vs. DEPUTY COMISSIONER 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

70,880/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2015 wherein the Assessing Officer made various additions including addition on account of alleged bogus purchases. In the first round of appellate proceedings, partial relief was granted by the CIT(A) and thereafter the matter travelled

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed