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 unexplained investment

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 unexplained investment

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 unexplained investment

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 unexplained investment

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 unexplained investment

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 unexplained investment

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 unexplained investment

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.

271(1)(c) is quasi criminal proceeding, therefore the revenue before imposing penalty is required to bring material on record suggesting the amount, subject matter addition in quantum proceeding, represents the income which has been concealed. 4. However, the AO held that the amount in question was offered by the assessee in connection with unexplained cash deposited in the bank

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.

271(1)(c) is quasi criminal proceeding, therefore the revenue before imposing penalty is required to bring material on record suggesting the amount, subject matter addition in quantum proceeding, represents the income which has been concealed. 4. However, the AO held that the amount in question was offered by the assessee in connection with unexplained cash deposited in the bank

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.

271(1)(c) is quasi criminal proceeding, therefore the revenue before imposing penalty is required to bring material on record suggesting the amount, subject matter addition in quantum proceeding, represents the income which has been concealed. 4. However, the AO held that the amount in question was offered by the assessee in connection with unexplained cash deposited in the bank

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

investments, Rs.33 lakhs on account of 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

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 69 to 69C of the Act as concealed income: (i) Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.186,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 69 to 69C of the Act as concealed income: (i) Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.186,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 69 to 69C of the Act as concealed income: (i) Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.186,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 69 to 69C of the Act as concealed income: (i) Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.186,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 69 to 69C of the Act as concealed income: (i) Unexplained cash deposits of Rs.186,78,95,978/- (ii) Unexplained investments of Rs.2,72,59,22,9447- (iii) Unexplained expenditure of Rs,45,59,238/- (iv) Income from other sources of Rs.30,01,31,143/- It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, provisions

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)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the solitary ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.55,14,076/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act which is illegal and bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 7. Ld. Counsel

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)

u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 6. Aggrieved against the appellate order, assessee is in appeal before us raising the solitary ground that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty of Rs.55,14,076/- levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act which is illegal and bad in law and liable to be cancelled. 7. Ld. Counsel