M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-12,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1

THE ITO, WARD-7(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCEL-7(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

c) is not justified.” 3. Additional ground: “Appellant craves leave to raise this additional ground of appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT. This is a legal ground and therefore as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power (229 ITR 383) it can be raised before the Hon'ble ITAT. 1

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

68, it cannot be said that this is a case of "no concealment" or of "no inaccurate" particulars of income and, therefore, penalty under s. 271(1)(c) is leviable. The honourable High Court held in para 7 (quoted verbatim) as below: 7. ........ When this order was challenged, the Commissioner has ruled that the department has not discharged its burden

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD., AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

251 (Guj)] and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [(2013) 31 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)]. 23. In the said decision in assessee’s own case, the Co-ordinate Bench has extensively examined the scope of DSIR’s authority, the applicability of Rule 6(7A), and the evidentiary value of Form 3CL. It has been held that the Form 3CL merely reflects intimation of cost

INTAS PHARMACEUTICALS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

Accordingly, this ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: S/Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2015-16 Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Vejalpur Vs Corporate House Ahmedabad. S.G. Highway Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L Asstt.Year : 2015-16 M/S.Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd Acit, Cir.2(1)(1) Corporate House Vs Vejalpur S.G. Highway Ahmedabad. Nr.Sola Bridge, Thaltej Ahmedabad 380 054. Pan : Aaaci 5120 L (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr.Advocae & Shri Parin Shah, Ar : Shri Ragnesh Das, Cit-Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28/04/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/05/2025 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

251 (Guj)] and Cadila Healthcare Ltd. [(2013) 31 taxmann.com 300 (Guj)]. 23. In the said decision in assessee’s own case, the Co-ordinate Bench has extensively examined the scope of DSIR’s authority, the applicability of Rule 6(7A), and the evidentiary value of Form 3CL. It has been held that the Form 3CL merely reflects intimation of cost

SANJAY JAYANTILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: S/Shri Sanjay Garg & Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2014-2015 Sanjay Jayantilal Shah Ito, Ward-2(1)(1) 202/A, Shivalik 10 Vs. Vejalpur Opp: Sbi Zonal Office Ahmedabad. Ambawadi, Ahmedabad 380 015 Pan : Aktps 8891 A (Applicant) (Responent) : Assessee By Shri S.N. Divatia & Shri Samir Vora, Ars. : Shri Kalpesh Rupavatia, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/09/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/10/2025 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Makarand V.Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.11.2024 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], For The Assessment Year 2014–15, Arising Out Of The Assessment Order Dated 31.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 Read With Section 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act") By The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Assessing Officer Or Ao"].

68 of the Act and further estimated cash commission at the rate of 5% of such accommodation entry, amounting to Rs. 5,25,240/-, as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act. Accordingly, the total income of the assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,27,55,871/-, as against returned income of Rs. 17,25,831/-. The Assessing Officer also

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-9(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1

SHRI PAVAN M.SHARMA L/H OF LATE MAHESH L.SHARMA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADIT(EXEMPTION),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 of the Act, the assessee was unable to prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the creditors and failed to discharge the initial onus cast upon him. From the above facts of the case, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) has not erred in law and on facts in confirming the penalty levied u/s. 271(1

SMT. MANJULABEN B. PATEL,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard

THE DY.CIT. CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BARODA vs. SMT. MANJULABEN BIPINCHANDRA PATEL, BARODA

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

c) of the Act was not applicable in respect of assessment years 2000-01 to 2005-06. We have also carefully considered the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the High Courts on which reliance has been placed by the Ld. Sr. Counsel in respect of reopening of the cases beyond 6 years. The lead judgment in this regard