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.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention

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.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention

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.

68 of the Act in the order passed under section 153A read with section 143(3)of the Act. Thus, the cash transaction was being done due to business exigency and extreme need of cash and was between family members i.e. individual to HUF. Thus, penalty under section 271D was not leviable as there was no contravention

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

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

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]

68 of the Act in the case of the appellant. The provisions of section 269SS ought not to have been invoked. It be so held now and penalty be deleted. 3. Without prejudice to the above, both the lower authorities failed to appreciate that the appellant had not violated the provisions of section 269SS for accepting amount

BHOGIBHAI VITHALBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-GANDHINAGAR, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed, and the impugned\npenalty order is quashed

68 of the Act for unexplained cash\ndeposits. Thereafter, the AO imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000/- under Section\n272A(1)(d) of the Act for non-compliance.\n3. The Assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and submitted\nbefore the CIT(A) that the notices and penalty orders were communicated to\nthe email ID of the authorized

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DCIT(OSD) RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT.LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,(OSD),, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

CORRTECH INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble& Shri Waseem Ahmed

68,670) in CENVAT credit. AO further found that ''closing stock” ought to have been valued as per ''Inclusive method" which was admittedly not done since assessee had followed “Exclusive method". Thus, AO took a view that if "closing stock” is valued as per "Inclusive method", value of "closing stock" is to ITA No. 1785/Ahd/2012 & 08 others Corrtech International

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