DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,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.

unexplained income or there was no recovery of cash or amount from assessee, levy of penalty 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

MAYUR NIRMALKUMAR JAIN,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-6(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained cash credits to the assessee’s income. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealing income. In addition to the above, the assessee had shown unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 21,38,214/- in the balance sheet. Notices under Section 133(6) were issued to the depositors

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

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition without providing the appellant with the material relied upon and opportunity of cross-examination resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts

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

unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 4. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts of the case in making addition without providing the appellant with the material relied upon and opportunity of cross-examination resulting in gross violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The learned AO has erred in law and on facts

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

SUJAN INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

unexplained cash credits, Rs.70 lakhs on account of unaccounted income – totaling to Rs.174 lakhs. The Assessing Officer levied penalty on the amount confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) and initiated penalty for ‘concealment of particulars of income’ in the assessment order. We have also gone through the penalty order wherein it is mentioned that ‘as brought out in the assessment

LKS BULLION (IMPORT AND EXPORT) PVT.LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal by Assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.382/Ahd/2022 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11 L.K.S. Bullion (Import & The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Export) Pvt.Ltd. Ward-2(1)(3) 368, Lks House, Ahmedabad – 380 014 V/S. Khetarpal-Ni-Pole Manek Chowk Ahmedabad -380 001 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaacl 7369 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocate & Shri Parin Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Alpesh Parmar, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/08/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee As Against The Order Dated 27/08/2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Ld.Cit(A)” In Short] Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 18/12/2017 By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income L.K.S. Bullion (Import & Export) Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2010-11

unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Act by way of a cryptic order concurring with findings of AO without considering detailed submissions made by the assessee. 3. Ld. CIT (A) (NFAC) erred in law and on facts in confirming action of AO to treat sales realization as loan to make addition u/s 68 of the Act ignoring the fact

JADE GRANITES INDUSTRIES,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 23-11-2023 In Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1058173176(1)

unexplained credits in the books of the assessee firm and accordingly added to the total I.T.A No. 81/Ahd/2024 A.Y. 2016-17 Page No. 8 Jade Granites Industries v. ITO income of the year. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are also initiated separately. [Addition Rs.30,00,000] In support of above discussion relied on following judicial decision

KALPANABEN NAYANKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

unexplained cash credit when transaction was carried out on a recognised stock exchange & all the transaction details, contract notes, ledger account from the broker were submitted before AO. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

KALPANABEN NAYANKUMAR SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The appeals of the assessee are allowed in above terms

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Guptaita Nos. 1877 & 1878/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 & 2017-18

unexplained cash credit when transaction was carried out on a recognised stock exchange & all the transaction details, contract notes, ledger account from the broker were submitted before AO. 7. Levy of interest u/s 234A/234B/234C & 234D of the Act is unjustified. 8. Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

cash component of which has been treated as 'income from other sources' in the hands of all the persons jointly making this investment, penalties have been levied under section 271AAA in the cases of Dr Anil Jain, Dr Vishal Gupta and B Srinivas Mallaya. It is contended that it cannot be open to the Assessing Officer to take different stand