VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

VIKAS AGARWAL,SILVASSA vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO,WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, SILVASSA WARD , SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

VIKAS AGARWAL,DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI vs. ITO, WARD SILVASSA, SILVASSA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act were also initiated for failure to comply with notices u/s 142(1) of the Act and for failure to file return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act respectively. 10.3 Aggrieved by the order of AO, the appellant filed appeal before the CIT(A). Before

SHRI FARSURAM RATILAL BHAMWALA,,BHARUCH vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1,, BHARUCH

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) & Ld. Cit(A) After Considering The Case Of Both The Parties Dismissed The Appeal Filed By The Assessee.

penalty proceedings u/s 274 r.w.s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” Ground No. 1 4. This ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of ITO in making additions of Rs. 5,36,556/- u/s. 41(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. Ld. A.R. appearing on behalf

MOHAMMED ANIS GULAM MOHAMMED MEMON,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(3)(7), SURAT, SURAT

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

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.227/Srt/2019 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Physical Hearing) Mohammed Anis Gulam Mohammed Vs. The Ito, Memon, Ward – 1(3)(7), 48, Memon Nagar Society, Nr. Surat Bharucha Apartment, Khandakuwa, Rander, Surat - 395005 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aljpm3607K (Appellant) (Respondent)

penalty u/s 271(1)(b) and finalization of your assessment u/s 144 of the Act.” 6. In response to the said notice, the assessee vide his reply dated, 25.09.2017, submitted before Assessing Officer, which is reproduced as follows: ITA.227/SRT/2019/AY.2015-16 Mohammed Anis Gulam Mohammed Momon “In response to the above noted notice I had a good fortune to see your good

JIGNESH MAHNDRALAL BHARUCHI,BHARUCH vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), BHARUCH

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

131 (Delhi - Trib.)/[2015] 154 ITD 617 (Delhi - Trib.) [06-05-2015], the ITAT held that penalty under section 271(1)(b) cannot be imposed for each and every notice issued under section 143(2), which remained not complied with on part of assessee, but it should be restricted to first default only. In the instant case

KANAIYALAL LABHUBHAI NAROLA,SURAT vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3,(2), SURAT, SURAT

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

131 taxmann.com 42 (Guj.). Accordingly, he dismissed the\nground on re-opening of the assessment proceedings.\n4.1\nThe other ground was regarding addition of Rs.3,00,00,000/- u/s 68 of\nthe Act. The facts leading to the above addition has been discussed at para 5.1.1 of\nthe appellate order. The appellant in the written submission had reiterated the\ncontention

PRAMOD RAMABHAI TANDEL,DAMAN vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, VAPI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms indicated above

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.580/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Hybrid Hearing) Pramod Ramabhai Tandel Assistant Commissioner Of Income- बनाम/ O Kusum Niwas, Sarvodaya Tax, Central Circle-1, 7Th, 8Th & 9Th Vs. Society, Tin Batti, Nani Floor, Fortune Square, Vapi-396 210 Daman, Daman-396 210 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aarpt 2989 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

section 69 and 69A of the Act and taxed on income assessed u/s.115BBE of the Act. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the AO in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income

DIVYABEN PRAFULCHANDRA PARMAR,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3)(1), SURAT

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.73/Srt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) (Physical Hearing) Divyaben Prafulchand Parmar, Vs. The Ito, Ward-1(3)(1), 1-2, Harikrishna Niwas, B/H Braham Surat. Kumari Ashram, Bhatar Road, Surat – 395017. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Acbpp9559Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

Penalty etc. on my shoulders. I humbly submit that the impugned order is high pitched order and is also arbitrary.” 4. Apart from this, ld Counsel also submitted that entire delay has resulted due to mistake of assessee`s Tax Consultant, Shri Pradip Gohil, who has not checked the order of ld CIT(A) in the e-portal of Income