PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD.,VADODARA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(2), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

274/-), in addition to other investments generating exempt income.\nA show cause notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain why\ndisallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made. In\nreply, the assessee submitted a breakup of interest expenses and claimed\nthat investments yielding exempt income were made from its own funds,\nthus attracting

THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VADODARA vs. PAWAN EDIFICE PVT. LTD., VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for\nstatistical reasons

274/-), in addition to other investments generating exempt income.\nA show cause notice was issued requiring the assessee to explain why\ndisallowance under section 14A read with Rule 8D should not be made. In\nreply, the assessee submitted a breakup of interest expenses and claimed\nthat investments yielding exempt income were made from its own funds,\nthus attracting

SHRI SUBHASH BECHULAL SONI,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-6(4),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 220/Ahd/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-10 Subhash Bechulal Soni, I.T.O., B/H Shahwadi Bus Stand, Vs. Ward-6(4), Shahwadi, Ahmedabad. Narol, Ahmedabad-382405. Pan: Adzps9498J

274 read with section 271(1)© of the Act dated 20 December 2011. During the penalty proceedings, the assessee was given opportunities to place his points of contention with respect to the penalty proceedings initiated against him. But the assessee did not comply the same. In the absence of any reply from the side of the assessee

SHRI RAMESHBHAI AMTHABHAI DESAI,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” Total Tax Effect 67,053”

section 274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act with remarks that the assessee have “concealed the particulars of income or…… Furnished inaccurate particulars of such income”. The Ld. Assessing Officer levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, with the following observations: “As stated in the show cause notice at para (ii) it is observed that there

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

section 68, since no live link/proximate nexus of alleged dubious transactions between searched person and assessee had been brought on record, said addition was to be deleted.” 8. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we find merits in the grounds raised by the Assessee and the same are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

section 68, since no live link/proximate nexus of alleged dubious transactions between searched person and assessee had been brought on record, said addition was to be deleted.” 8. Respectfully following the above judicial precedents, we find merits in the grounds raised by the Assessee and the same are allowed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee

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/- 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(1)(c) of the Act on the reasoning that there

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INT.TAXA.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

274 r.w.s 271(1)(c) of the Act against the Appellant. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they or their representative may think fit.” 65. We observe that all the issues covered in the grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, barring two issues

SHRI NAGIN A VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for A

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyali.T(Ss).A. Nos.449/Ahd/2019 & 44/Ahd/2020 (A.Ys.: 2011-12 & 2012-13) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Shri Nagin A. Vaghela, Tax, 11, Purva Bunglow, Nr. Central Circle-3, Manglam Duple, Sama, Vadodara Vadodara [Pan No.Aakpw5302R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

274 regarding non-compliance was issued on IT(SS)A Nos.449 & 44/Ahd/2019&2020 & 1562/Ahd/2019 & 270/Ahd/2021 DCIT vs. Shri Nagin A Vaghela & Nagin A. Vaghela vs. ACIT Asst.Years –2011-12, 2012-13, 2014-15 & 2017-18 - 13– December 22, 2014, but the assessee again failed to respond to the said notice. Further notices under section 281B were issued, as well