SHRI FRIENDS CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act).” All these grounds of appeal are interconnected therefore they are adjudicated together. 4. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. nil was filed on 7th December, 2013. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2

I.M.A. VADODARA CO.-OP. CREDIT SOC. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act).” All these grounds of appeal are interconnected therefore they are adjudicated together. 4. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. nil was filed on 7th December, 2013. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2

SHRI SAHAJANAND CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(2),, VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act).” All these grounds of appeal are interconnected therefore they are adjudicated together. 4. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. nil was filed on 7th December, 2013. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2

SHRE VAISHNAV PARIVAR SAHAKARI MANDALI LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1)(1),, VADODARA

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

penalty proceeding u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act).” In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. nil was filed on 13th 3. August, 2013. Subsequently, the case was selected under scrutiny by issuing of notice u/s. 143(2) on 2nd September, 2001. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noticed

THE KARAMSAD NAGRIK CO. OP. CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,,ANAND vs. THE DCIT, ANAND CIRCLE, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1195/Ahd/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 The Karamsad Nagrik Co-Op. Credit D.C.I.T. Society Ltd., Vs. Anand Circle, Nr. Bus Stand, Anand. At & Post Karamsad, Karamsad.

penalty provisions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be attracted. A.Y. 2013-14 5 6.1 Moving further, there is an explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act which provides deemed concealment of income. Under the explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) of the Act, there are 2 situations. In situation

GUJARAT FISHERIES CENTRE CO .OPERATIVE ASSOCIATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABDA vs. ITO, WRAD-5(2)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

B” BENCH Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member ITA No. 232 /Ahd/2018 Assessment Year 2012-13 Gujarat Fisheries Central Pr. Commissioner of Co. Operative Association Income Tax-5, Ltd. Sakar-S 2 to 4, Nehru Vs Ahmedabad Bridge Corner, Ashram (Respondent) Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AABAG5675M (Appellant) Assessee by: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.R. Revenue

THE SHUKLATIRTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in not admitting the appeal filed by the appellant u/s 249(4) (b) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant a registered co-operative credit society under the provisions of Sec. 80 (P) was exempted from paying taxes. 3. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred

THE SHUKLATIRTH SEVA SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD.,BHARUCH vs. THE ITO (EXEMPTION) WARD, VADODARA

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

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

2. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in not admitting the appeal filed by the appellant u/s 249(4) (b) of the Act without appreciating the fact that the appellant a registered co-operative credit society under the provisions of Sec. 80 (P) was exempted from paying taxes. 3. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred