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

271(1)(c) of the Act. Having considered the record, we find that both the assessment order and the appellate order are reasoned and speak to the issues raised by the assessee. No specific instance has been pointed out to demonstrate any material submission having been overlooked. As regards Ground No. 4, it is well settled that initiation of penalty

SHRI GIRISHBHAI M.PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,MEHSANA CIRCLE,, MEHSANA

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 337/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 Girishbhai M. Patel, A.C.I.T., 4, Regent Park, Vs. Mehsana Circle, Vanza Co-Operative Society, Mehsana. Part-Ii, Near Judges Bungalow, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Abypp8093M

68,900.00 being hundred percent of the amount of tax sought to be evaded. 4.3 On appeal, the learned CIT-A confirmed the order of the AO by sustaining the penalty imposed by him (the AO) under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

SHRI SHAILESHKUMAR SHIVRAMBAHI PATEL,,PALANPUR vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5,, PALANPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year:2012-13 Shaileshkumarshivrambhai Patel, The Ito, Ward-5, Prop. M/S. Toran Aqua Link, 23, Naval Vs Palanpur. Park Society, O/S. Becharpura Railway Station, Palanpur, Banaskantha-385001. Pan :Aefpp 7860 J (Applicant) (Responent)

68 assuming that assessee was unable to prove the source of the same income and concealing the same. The penalty was initiated under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars and thereby concealing income. After considering the reply of the assessee, the Assessing Officerimposed penalty under section 271(1

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

section 271(1)(c) of the Act and whether in the instant set of facts it can be said that the assessee had reasonable cause for not furnishing return of I.T.A No. 2622/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No. 7 Vijaybhai Dashrathbhai Patel vs. ACIT income. It may be useful to refer to the ITAT Kolkata decision in the case

PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

271/- as against addition of Rs.1,56,75,889/- made by the AO u/s 68\nof the I.T. Act as credited in the books on account of cancellation of bookings on\nthe basis of additional evidences submitted by the assessee, dehorse provisions of\nRule 46A of I.T.Rules and without calling remand report.\n12. On the facts and in the circumstances

DHARAMTAR MOTORS SERVICES PETROLEUM PRODUCT,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(1)(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the results, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 1438 & 2534/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2012-2013 M/S Dharamtar Motor Services Income Tax Officer, Petroleum Product, Vs. Ward 6(1)(4) C/O. Ketan H. Shah, Advocate 903, Ahmedabad. Sapphire Complex, C.G. Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad. Pan: Aabfd9182F

271(1)(c) of the Act (here-in-after referred to as "the Act") dt. 27/03/2015 and 29/09/2017 relevant to the Assessment Year 2012-2013. ITA nos.1438 & 2534/AHD/2017 Asstt. Year 2012-13 2 First, we take up ITA No.1438/Ahd/2017 for A.Y. 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal. The following grounds are without prejudice to each

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

b) of the Copyright Act. The EULAs in all the appeals do not grant any such right or interest, least of all, a right or interest to reproduce the computer software. In point of fact, such reproduction is expressly interdicted, and it is also expressly stated that no vestige of copyright is at all transferred, either to the distributor

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

B. Parmar, A.R. Date of Hearing 17.04.2024 Date of Pronouncement 24.04.2024 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), passed for Assessment Year 2014-15 deleting the levy of penalty under Section

ISHIT KAMLESHBHAI SHETH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

68 filings.\n12\nThe penalty levied under section 270A(2)(b) is premised solely\non the fact that the return was not filed under section 139, and that\nthe total income was above the basic exemption limit. In our opinion\npenalty under section 270A cannot be imposed mechanically merely\nbecause the assessee filed the return of income