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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

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

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Our findings and decision: 12. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The basic facts of the case are not under dispute. The assessee had claimed additional deduction of Rs.93.04 crores on account of change in the method of claiming the lease rental expense on SLM basis. It is found that this

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 10,043/-, vide penalty order dated 07.01.2022 in DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2021- 22/1038512707(1). 2. First, I will take the appeal of the assessee in ITA nio. 85/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with Income

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

271(1)(c) of the Act, to the tune of Rs. 10,043/-, vide penalty order dated 07.01.2022 in DIN ITBA/PNL/F/271(1)(c)/2021- 22/1038512707(1). 2. First, I will take the appeal of the assessee in ITA nio. 85/Ahd/2024 for assessment year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in Memo of Appeal filed with Income

N K PROTEINS PVT. LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE- 3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is directed to be deleted and the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty imposed on the assessee u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has no legs to stand on and is liable to be deleted. 4. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extracts of the ruling for ready reference. We observe that ITAT in assessee’s own case for assessment year 2011-12 vide order dated

M/S. DRAIPL-MSKEL(JV),,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2007-08 Draipl-Kskel (Jv) Ito, Ward-9(2) 2Nd Floor, “Msk” Vs. Ahmedabad. Passport Office To Panjarapole Rd. Ambawadi Ahmedabad 380 015. Pan : Aaaad 3825 B (Applicant) (Responent)

u/s 271(1)(c) for furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income in respect of both additions. After issuing show cause and considering the assessee’s replies dated 06.07.2010 and 29.02.2012, the AO levied minimum penalty of Rs.87,36,356/- being 100% of tax sought to be evaded. During the course of penalty proceedings on disallowance under section 80IA

BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA, (L/H OF LATE BHAGWATSINH J CHAVDA),AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI RANCHHODBHAI MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. MAKWANA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

LATE BHAGWATSINH JIBHUBHAI CHAVDA)L/H.BHAKTIBEN BHAGWATSINH CHAVDA,,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-5(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act in connection with the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) We shall first take up ITA No. 2281/Ahd/2016 (Bhagwanbhai R. Makwana vs. ITO) 4. The brief facts of the case are that during the year under consideration, the assessee sold property at Vejalpur, Ahmedabad, which was jointly purchased with Shri Bhagwatsinh

AMISH UMESH JANI,THANE, MAHARASHTRA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(2)(5), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

271(l)(b) of the I. T. Act, 1961 for non-compliance. This letter may be treated as notice u/s. 142(1) of the I. T. Act 1961.” 2.2 However, the assessee did not responded to the SCN , and the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame assessment u/s. 144 r.w.s 147, wherein addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was made

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” Ground number 1: taxability of HR Shall People Support as royalty: 5. During the impugned year under