VIJAY M.MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been challenged by the Department for A.Y. 2012- 13. 4. The appellant has further raised following additional ground for A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10: “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has grievously erred in holding that other income

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. VIJAY M. MISTRY CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeals are allowed and Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2938/Ahd/2011, 2939/Ahd/2011, 2286/Ahd/2012, 268/Ahd/2015, 269/Ahd/2015, 502/Ahd/2017, 1145/Ahd/2019 & 1468/Ahd/2019 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2016-17) Address In A.Ys. 2007-08, बनाम/ 2008-09 & 2009-10 Vs. Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Asst. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, 501, Swagat, C. G. Road, Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Ellisbridge, Ahmedabad – & Bhavan, Ambawadi, 380006 (Gujarat) Ahmedabad Address In A.Ys. 2010-11 Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Range-8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, Ltd. Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Bhavan, Ambawadi, Society, Opp. Gulbai Ahmedabad Tekra Police Choki & Ambawadi, Ahmedabad – 380015 Address In A.Ys. 2011-12 Vijay M. Mistry Cons. P. Dy. Commissioner Of Ltd. Income Tax (Osd) & Circle–8, B-209, 2Nd Floor, “Mistry House”, 9, Preyas Panjara Pole, Pratyakshkar Society, Opp. Gulbai Bhavan, Ambawadi, Tekra Police Choki, Ahmedabad Ambawadi, Ahmedabad –

penalty by the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act has been challenged by the Department for A.Y. 2012- 13. 4. The appellant has further raised following additional ground for A.Ys. 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2009-10: “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned Assessing Officer has grievously erred in holding that other income

VIRMATI SOFTWARE & TELECOMMUNICATION LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1135/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 Virmati Software & Telecommunication D.C.I.T, Limited, Vs. Cirle-4(1)(2) A-2/3, Arjun Tower, Ahmedabad. Satellite Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380 015. Pan: Aaacv6480G

penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal. 2. The 1st issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT-A erred in confirming the part disallowance

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat

DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ CO. LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT.,CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat

THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, VADODARA vs. DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD.,, VADODARA

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the alleged concealment and/or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. 7.0 The appellant craves leave to add to, alter, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” ITA No.2858/Ahd/2015 & 05 others Dakshin Gujarat

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

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

928/- to Rs.24,45,000/- and Rs.92,70,027/- to Rs.28,55,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in Swaminarayan Residence and Hotel Nilkanth respectively without considering and appreciating the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer and also without giving him opportunity of being heard. 7. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

928/- to Rs.24,45,000/- and Rs.92,70,027/- to Rs.28,55,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in Swaminarayan Residence and Hotel Nilkanth respectively without considering and appreciating the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer and also without giving him opportunity of being heard. 7. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

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

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

928/- to Rs.24,45,000/- and Rs.92,70,027/- to Rs.28,55,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in Swaminarayan Residence and Hotel Nilkanth respectively without considering and appreciating the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer and also without giving him opportunity of being heard. 7. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

928/- to Rs.24,45,000/- and Rs.92,70,027/- to Rs.28,55,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in Swaminarayan Residence and Hotel Nilkanth respectively without considering and appreciating the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer and also without giving him opportunity of being heard. 7. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case

SHRI UMANG HIRALAL THAKKAR,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT.,CENT.CIRCLE-1(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

928/- to Rs.24,45,000/- and Rs.92,70,027/- to Rs.28,55,000/- in respect of unexplained investment in Swaminarayan Residence and Hotel Nilkanth respectively without considering and appreciating the valuation report of the District Valuation Officer and also without giving him opportunity of being heard. 7. On the fact and in the circumstances of the case