SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

loss set aside as provision for diminution in the value of asset is required to be added to the net profit for working the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. Therefore, disallowance of Rs.50.69 lacs was added back to the working of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act The CIT(A) has not granted any relief to the assessee

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

loss set aside as provision for diminution in the value of asset is required to be added to the net profit for working the book profit u/s.115JB of the Act. Therefore, disallowance of Rs.50.69 lacs was added back to the working of book profit u/s. 115JB of the Act The CIT(A) has not granted any relief to the assessee

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

set aside by the learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act vide order dated 16.03.2016 with the direction to disallow the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54G of the Act for Rs. 74,65,134/- only. Accordingly, a show-cause notice was issued by the AO upon the assessee for disallowing the deduction u/s

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

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. Per contra, the Ld. A/R drew our attention to the various documents placed in the Paper-Book filed by him. Referring to them, the Ld. A/R demonstrated the chronological events of scrutiny-proceedings conducted by Ld. AO as under: Date Proceeding 01.09.2015 Notice u/s 143(2) issued by CASS

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty provision of section 271(1)(c). Every figure in the return which is set opposite to the item of income is a particular income, whether the figure is one which is stated independently of anything else that appears in the return or the documents accompanying it or whether it is something derived from other figures elsewhere stated in such

M/S. ATUL LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

loss to the revenue. Therefore, the penalty initiated by the A.O. is liable to be levied. 6. In light of the facts discussed above, I am satisfied that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the deduction claimed to the tune of Rs. 4,45,62,409/- (4,44,02,159 u/s 80HHC + 1,60,250 u/s

ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.RUSHABH VATIKA,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

loss of revenue. The penalty under this section is a civil liability. Willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as is in the matter of prosecution u/s. 276C. What is required is that there is concealment/or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income that would be sufficient to levy penalty. 6. Except the above mentioned letter dated

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)

loss account or income and expenditure statement prepared at the end of the Financial Year. However, the assessee has directly reflected these receipts in its Balance-sheet, which is against the Standard Accounting Principle. The AO added these receipts to the total income of the assessee by treating it as Revenue Receipt and accordingly computed the tax and also initiated

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)

loss account or income and expenditure statement prepared at the end of the Financial Year. However, the assessee has directly reflected these receipts in its Balance-sheet, which is against the Standard Accounting Principle. The AO added these receipts to the total income of the assessee by treating it as Revenue Receipt and accordingly computed the tax and also initiated

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)

loss account or income and expenditure statement prepared at the end of the Financial Year. However, the assessee has directly reflected these receipts in its Balance-sheet, which is against the Standard Accounting Principle. The AO added these receipts to the total income of the assessee by treating it as Revenue Receipt and accordingly computed the tax and also initiated