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

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be levied. Reliance is placed on decision of Hon:ble Bombay High court in the case of CIT VsBennet Coleman & Co Ltd 215 Taxman 93 wherein it is held as under: "Section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Penalty - For concealment of income [Bona fide claim, disallowance of] - Assessment year

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

73,549/- The assessee has not filed an appeal on this issue Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) were initiated separately on this addition.” C. Disallowance of various expenses under the head of office expenses of Rs. 39,50,678/-. “…..since the assessee has not furnished any details or evidence related to balances written-off and the assessee has also

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.

73,25,012/- only. The AO made an assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act assessing loss at Rs. 2,56,09,614/- while making the assessment, the A. O. had made additions/disallowance on account of excess of bad debts for Rs. 7,25,19,032/- and Rs. 91,96,966/- on account of excess provision for bad debts

THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DINESHCHANDRA R AGRAWAL INFRACON PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 85/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty as the disclosure of income by assessee is covered under both expressions i.e. concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particular of income as both expressions ultimately lead to under

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 11 and 12 by invoking the provision of section 2(15) of the Act and (ii) Revenue receipts not offered for taxation under the disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 11 and 12 by invoking the provision of section 2(15) of the Act and (ii) Revenue receipts not offered for taxation under the disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 11 and 12 by invoking the provision of section 2(15) of the Act and (ii) Revenue receipts not offered for taxation under the disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 11 and 12 by invoking the provision of section 2(15) of the Act and (ii) Revenue receipts not offered for taxation under the disguise of it being capital receipt. 7. In response the Assessee made a detailed reply stating that as per the provisions of Section 271[1][c] of the Act penalty can be levied only

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, BARODA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUIT COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Act was on account of disallowance of deduction of Rs.2,13,73,473/- u/s 10B of the Act on account of the fact that the assessee had not received sales proceeds of Rs.2,13,73,473/- in convertible foreign exchange, as required u/s 10B(3), therefore, he was not eligible for deduction u/s

SHRI AJAY MAYOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

73 taxmann.com 241 (SC). 5. The CIT(Appeals), however, was not convinced with the explanations furnished by the assessee and rejected the arguments raised. The CIT(Appeals) observed that the amount received by the assessee from Mimosa Trust was clearly taxable in India under the provisions of the Act and that the assessee had failed to disclose the complete details

SHRI RAMESHBHAI AMTHABHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Total Tax Effect 67,053”

u/s. 271(1)(C) of the I.T. Act is I.T.A No. 1440/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2012-13 Page No. 4 Shri Rameshbhai A. Desai vs. ITO being initiated for filing of inaccurate particulars of income thereby concealing the income.” 4. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the penalty under section 271 (1) (c) the Act. 5. The assessee is in appeal before

ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY./JT.CIT., (OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

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

271(1)(c) and 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. 2. ITA Nos. 619/Ahd/2023 for A.Y. 2007-08. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee engaged in the manufacture and sale I.T.A Nos. 619 & 620/Ahd/2023