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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The assessing officer stated that during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A

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.

u/s. 54G of the Act against the transfer of agriculture land, which was not notified for the purpose of Section 54G of the Act. Thus the deduction claimed under section 54G of the Act is contrary to the provisions of law. In the given facts & circumstances the assessee cannot take the shelter of the ignorance of the provisions

SHRI HIMANSHU PRAFULCHANDRA VARIA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act can be levied for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income or concealment of income. He has further argued that the non disclosure of Rs.59,19,500/- was under bona fide mistake and has been considered and offered in the revised computation of income filed by the appellant during the course

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

133A was conducted in case of Amarsingh Ramubhai 12/12/2011 Solanki 4. Return Filled against the Notice U/s 148 of the IT. Act, 1961 31/03/2012 5. Time limit for completion of Assessment U/s 1 53(1 )(a) 31/03/2012 6. Time limit for completion of Assessment U/s 153(1)(b) 31/03/2013 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further relied

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 02/11/2015. During the survey proceedings, several documents, note books/loose papers files/ booking receipt books etc. were found and impounded as per Annexure A-1 to A-32. In view of the survey and incriminating materials found, the case of the assessee firm were reopened u/s

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 02/11/2015. During the survey proceedings, several documents, note books/loose papers files/ booking receipt books etc. were found and impounded as per Annexure A-1 to A-32. In view of the survey and incriminating materials found, the case of the assessee firm were reopened u/s

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee firm on 02/11/2015. During the survey proceedings, several documents, note books/loose papers files/ booking receipt books etc. were found and impounded as per Annexure A-1 to A-32. In view of the survey and incriminating materials found, the case of the assessee firm were reopened u/s

BHOMKA PLY & BOARD INDUSTRIES,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2,, ANAND

Appeal is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita.No.500/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Asstt Year :2008-09)

penalty of Rs. 4,64,750/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3. Briefly stated facts has culled out from the records are that the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of manufacturing and selling of ply board, block board. Survey u/s. 133A

ASSISSTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA, VADODARA vs. RADHIKA JEWELLERS, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

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

133A of the Act was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 19-10-2012. During the course of survey, the assessee admitted unaccounted income to the tune of Rs. 2,01,00,050/- on account of difference in stock of gold, silver ornaments, bullion as well as excess cash found. For the Asst. Year 2013-14, assessee

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 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.” 49. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRASPACE PRIVATE LIMITED,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 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.” 49. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. JAS INFRA SPACE PRIVATE LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 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.” 49. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground

JAS INFRASPACE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act is unjustified. 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.” 49. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground

SHRI NIRAL KRUPESH PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(3), BARODA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act)” 2. The learned AO erred in fact in law in levying penalty without specifying the charge (i.e whether for inaccurate particulars of income or for concealment of particular of income) of penalty. 3. Your appellant craves the right to add to alter, amend , substitute, delete or modify

SHRI TUSHAR HASMUKHBHAI SONI,,PETLAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the Act. It be held so now and penalty levied by the CIT (A) be deleted. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty on disclosed income of Rs. 1,50,000/-. Your appellant submits that the penalty levied is unjust and uncalled and therefore be deleted

RBZ JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A of the Act on 03.02.2010 was conducted and during the course of survey proceeding cash of Rs.10,34,931/- was found which according to the survey officials was not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee was, therefore, asked to explain the said unaccounted cash by and under an order sheet entry dated 08.01.2013 whereupon the assessee submitted

RBZ JEWELLERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is disposed off

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

133A of the Act on 03.02.2010 was conducted and during the course of survey proceeding cash of Rs.10,34,931/- was found which according to the survey officials was not recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee was, therefore, asked to explain the said unaccounted cash by and under an order sheet entry dated 08.01.2013 whereupon the assessee submitted

SHRI RASIKBHAI C. PATEL,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-1,, ANAND

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

penalty of Rs. 3,35,126/-, in proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. I.T.A No. 2029/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2003-04 Page No 2 Shri Rasikbhai C. Patel vs. ITO 2. In this case, return of income declaring income of Rs. 78,712/- was filed on 4th August, 2003. Thereafter, assessment u/s

SIDDHRAJ DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1041/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10

survey under section 133A was carried out at the business premises of the assessee. According to the AO, the assessee has disclosed an amount of Rs.11.50 lakhs voluntarily towards unaccounted receipts for accounting year 2008-09 in addition to its regular income. The ld.AO further observed that in the return filed on 29.9.2009 for A.Y.2009-10 it had offered Rs.8.50 lakhs