AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS CIRCLE,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. VODAFONE MOBILE SERVICE LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS VODAFONE WEST LTD.),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

68,562/-imposed on the assessee under section 271C r.w.s. 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment

SHRI GOVINDBHAI G. BHARWAD,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-6,, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2436/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-2012 Govindbhai G. Bharwad, D.C.I.T., 1, Vushwas Residency, Vs. Circle-6, Opp. Malav Kutir, Ahmedabad. B/H Hitarth Party Plot, Sola, Ahmedabad.

271C, and, section 40(a)(ia) does not add to the same. The provisions of Section 40(a)(ia), as they existed prior to insertion of second proviso thereto, went much beyond the obvious intentions of the lawmakers and created undue hardships even in cases in which the assessee's tax withholding lapses did not result

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

271C of the Act is very categorical and is not open to interpretation. The operative part of the section is being reproduced for ready reference: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. 271D. (1)…… I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 39 Shri Pavan

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

271C of the Act is very categorical and is not open to interpretation. The operative part of the section is being reproduced for ready reference: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. 271D. (1)…… I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 39 Shri Pavan

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

271C of the Act is very categorical and is not open to interpretation. The operative part of the section is being reproduced for ready reference: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. 271D. (1)…… I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 39 Shri Pavan

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

271C of the Act is very categorical and is not open to interpretation. The operative part of the section is being reproduced for ready reference: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. 271D. (1)…… I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 39 Shri Pavan

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

271C of the Act is very categorical and is not open to interpretation. The operative part of the section is being reproduced for ready reference: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. 271D. (1)…… I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 39 Shri Pavan

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

271C of the Act is very categorical and is not open to interpretation. The operative part of the section is being reproduced for ready reference: Penalty for failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS. 271D. (1)…… I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 39 Shri Pavan

SHRI ASHOKKUMAR DEVICHAND LODHA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A).The Ld.Cit(A) Has Sustained The Impugned Penalty.

68,670/-, in proceedings under section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The brief