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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

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

271D and 271E of the Act dated 24/09/2013 respectively. I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 2 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO ITA No. 1030 & 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Ys. 2003-04 & 2004-05: 2. Since the facts and the issues under consideration in both the appeals are identical we shall first

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

2. In these appeals, the assessees have challenged imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. The details are as follows: Name of assessee Asst.Year Penalty Amount Shri Mohanlal Savjibhai Tilva 2012-13 Rs.10,00,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs. 5,31,000/- Shri Vishal Mohanlal Tilva 2013-14 Rs.7,50,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs.1

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

2. In these appeals, the assessees have challenged imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. The details are as follows: Name of assessee Asst.Year Penalty Amount Shri Mohanlal Savjibhai Tilva 2012-13 Rs.10,00,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs. 5,31,000/- Shri Vishal Mohanlal Tilva 2013-14 Rs.7,50,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs.1

SHRI MOHANLAL SAVJIBHAI TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

2. In these appeals, the assessees have challenged imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. The details are as follows: Name of assessee Asst.Year Penalty Amount Shri Mohanlal Savjibhai Tilva 2012-13 Rs.10,00,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs. 5,31,000/- Shri Vishal Mohanlal Tilva 2013-14 Rs.7,50,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs.1

SHRI VISHAL MOHANLAL TILVA,BARODA vs. THE ADDL.CIT, CENTRAL RANGE, BARODA

In the result, all the appeals of the assessees are allowed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarsr.

2. In these appeals, the assessees have challenged imposition of penalty under section 271D of the Act. The details are as follows: Name of assessee Asst.Year Penalty Amount Shri Mohanlal Savjibhai Tilva 2012-13 Rs.10,00,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs. 5,31,000/- Shri Vishal Mohanlal Tilva 2013-14 Rs.7,50,000/- -do- 2014-15 Rs.1

SHRI ANIRUDHSINGH P. PADHIYAR,,ANAND vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2),, PETLAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee/ appellant is allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

68, question of treating it as transaction in violation of section 269SS or section 2697 did not arise as it stood mutually excluded - Held, yes - Whether, therefore, impugned penalty order was to be set aside - Held, yes [Para 7] [In favour of assessee] II. Section 269SS, read with sections 271D and 273B, of the Income

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

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

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

M/S. APPLE WEIGHINFRA LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad) [Through Virtual Court]

271D of the Income tax Act, 1961 for alleged contravention of provisions of section 269SS of the Act. On the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case, the receipt from director being not a loan or deposit, the provisions of section 269SS are not applicable. It be so held now and penalty be deleted. 2

SHRI HARESHKUMAR BECHARBHAI PATEL,PATAN vs. THE JT. C.I.T., MEHSANA RANGE,, PATAN

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2996/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2008-2009 Hareshkumar Becharbhai Patel Jcit, 57/58, Triupati Market, Tax, Vs. Near Bagvadadarwaja, Patan. Patan.

2,54,000/- under the provision of section 271D of the Act. 5. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal to Ld. CIT (A). The assessee before the Ld. CIT (A) submitted that the Gift Deed was not prepared at the time of taking the gift because assessee was not aware of the taxation provision. The Gift Deed was prepared when

MR. PRANJAL PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

271D and 271E of the Act for violation of provisions of section 269SS and 2697T. In view of the above facts as the order passed by the AO on 10/02/2015 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, a notice u/s.263 of the Act dated 09/03/2017 was issued intimating the above grounds, and calling upon the assessee

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR vs. SHRI VITTHALBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,76,340/-. There was a survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and family members on 27.12.2010 at 1: 30 P.M. and concluded on the next date at 4:00 P.M. During the course of survey, statements were recorded disclosing income of Rs.25 crores by forcibly creating fabricated evidence

SHRI VITTHALBHAI MADHAVLAL PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

68,76,340/-. There was a survey action u/s. 133A of the Act was conducted at the business premises of the assessee and family members on 27.12.2010 at 1: 30 P.M. and concluded on the next date at 4:00 P.M. During the course of survey, statements were recorded disclosing income of Rs.25 crores by forcibly creating fabricated evidence