RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 12,360/- with respect to the additions made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 12,360/- with respect to the additions made on account of unexplained cash credit under section 68

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

section 271(1)(c) but finally it was held that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore liability of penalty arises with the following manner: “4.6 In view of above facts and legal position discussed in the preceding paras, the assessee is held to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income and therefore the liability of penalty

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

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

M/S. ASIAN AGENCY,,AHMEDABAD vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,VII,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt. Madhumita Roy

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

68 has also held that where the assessment of the assessee was completed on estimated basis penalty under section 271(1)(c

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

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

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

1)(c) of the I.T Act of Rs.7,68,900/- The appellant craves permission to add, alter, amend or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee has challenged the validity of the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. APPLITECH SOLUTIONS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

section has been enacted to provide for a remedy for loss of revenue and that wiliful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 3.5 In view of the decisions discussed above, it clearly emerges that in case any where any particular filed in the return of income

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations of ld. CIT(A) at para

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations of ld. CIT(A) at para

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations of ld. CIT(A) at para

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

271(1)(c) of the Act, the ld. counsel for I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 8 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO the assessee submitted that no separate adjudication is required. The ld. Departmental Representative in response placed reliance on observations of ld. CIT(A) at para