DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed

CHHAYA VIKAS SHAH LEGAL HEIR & WIFE OF LATE VIKAS SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all three appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarsl. आयकर अपील सं/ "नधा"रण वष"/ Appeal(S) By : No(S)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income as thereby concealing income of Rs. 28,93,042/-", Only in the last para while quantifying the penalty he has erroneously only mentioned "...Of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income". His firmed-up opinion is clearly enumerated in Page 7 para 10 (supra) leading to conclusion that

ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY./JT.CIT., (OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the entire basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer have been modified from Gross Profit basis to Net Profit

ASIAN GRANITO INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. DY./JT.CIT., (OSD),CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and filing inaccurate particulars of income by the assessee. 9. We have given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the entire basis of addition made by the Assessing Officer have been modified from Gross Profit basis to Net Profit

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F: 20) AO has initiated the penalty

MANAS KUMAR DAS,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

271(l)(c) by stating that the assessee has concealed ITA Nos. 1277&1278/Ahd/2024 Manas Kumar Das vs. ITO Asst. Year –2011-12 - 5– the particulars of income which is not valid notice as the assessee has shown the same in his return filed under section 148 of the Act. Penalty Proceeding U/s 271F: 20) AO has initiated the penalty

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)

income, no penalty is leviable as the amount represents disallowance of certain expenses and no concealment is detected/proved by the AO. Thus considering all the facts of the case, the submissions made by the AO and the rulings of various courts, there is no ground for levy of penalty and accordingly the penalty of Rs.62,11,054/- levied u/s 271

PARESHKUMAR PUNAMCHAND SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(2)(4), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar (Accountant Member)

undisclosed sources and added to your total income as unexplained above for the year under consideration and also why the penalty U/s 271

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

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

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

undisclosed sales proceeds can be treated as income, answers by itself in the negative. 19. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that an ad-hoc 10% of the impugned sale of ₹ 70,50,096/- being the sum of ₹ 7,05,010/-, if added to the total income of the assessee, shall render justice to the revenue