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

BHARAT MOHANLAL PATEL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-4(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year :2015-16 Bharat Mohanlal Patel The Ito, Ward-4(1)(2) 33, Haridarshan Bungalows Vs Ahmedabad. Nr.Cims Hospital Science City Road Sola, Ahmedabad 380 060. Pan : Akspp 4231 E

68,516/- under section 271B in as much as when the assessee has not maintained any books of accounts

INFINITY BUILDCOM,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(3)(2), AHMEDABAD, VEJALPUR, AHMEDABNAD

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

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68 of the Act as income of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee had purchased an immovable property amounting to Rs.45,00,000/-, which remained unexplained and accordingly, the Assessing Officer added the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer assessed the total income of the assessee

JATINKUMAR PATEL,CHHATRAL KALOL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, WARD 1, MEHSANA, MEHSANA

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

Bench: Dr. B.R.R Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,149/- as unexplained money under section 69A. The amount was brought to tax under section 115BBE, and penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(c) and 271B

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE VANDELI DUDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI MANDLI LTD,PANCHMAHAL vs. THE ITO, WARD-1, GODHRA

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

68 of the IT Act, 1961, without adjudicating the appeal on merits and without considering the appellant's inability to respond to the hearing notices due to genuine constraints. 4:0 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in law and on facts has confirmed the addition of 278,170/- on account of interest income, without adjudicating

SHRI SANDEEP JAGDISHCHANDRA DAVE,,AHMEDABAD vs. TEH PR. CIT -3, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

68,57,134/-, which is apparently not commensurate to the business of the assessee. However, during the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer did not make any effort to verify the correctness and genuineness of claim of aforesaid expenses. Thirdly, the PCIT observed that on verification of Column 20(b) of Form 3CD, there was a late deposit of employees

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

section 44AB despite it's receipts / collection was above the prescribed limit of Rs.40,00,000/-, penalty proceedings u/s. 271B r.w.s. 274 is also initiated separately. 3. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad. Though the assessee raised its Grounds of Appeal only on the addition made

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

section 44AB despite it's receipts / collection was above the prescribed limit of Rs.40,00,000/-, penalty proceedings u/s. 271B r.w.s. 274 is also initiated separately. 3. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad. Though the assessee raised its Grounds of Appeal only on the addition made

PATEL AMBALAL LAXMANDAS NI CO.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all the appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

section 44AB despite it's receipts / collection was above the prescribed limit of Rs.40,00,000/-, penalty proceedings u/s. 271B r.w.s. 274 is also initiated separately. 3. Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee preferred further appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-12, Ahmedabad. Though the assessee raised its Grounds of Appeal only on the addition made

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

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus determined the assessed income as Rs. 1,68,10,620/- u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and also charged interest of u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) as the assessee company has concealed its income