Search: penalty u/s 271 | BharatTax

Search ITAT High Courts Supreme Court Phrases AI Research History

Filters

Sort by

Assessment Year

Order Date From

Order Date To

Judge Name

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

Search Judgments
Browse by Bench
Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

79 results for “penalty u/s 271”+ Section 27(1)(c)clear

Sorted by relevance

Delhi1,955 Mumbai1,730 Ahmedabad474 Jaipur415 Bangalore369 Kolkata312 Chennai276 Pune241 Hyderabad218 Indore180 Chandigarh147 Raipur139 Karnataka130 Surat79 Rajkot74 Amritsar69 Lucknow60 Visakhapatnam56 Allahabad50 Cochin43 Nagpur35 Calcutta35 Agra27 Dehradun25 Panaji20 Kerala15 Cuttack15 Guwahati12 Ranchi11 Patna11 SC11 Jabalpur6 Varanasi5 Telangana4 Jodhpur4 Rajasthan3

Key Topics

Section 271(1)(c)167 Addition to Income74 Section 69A60 Penalty51 Section 143(3)41 Section 80I28 Section 14824 Disallowance23 Deduction23

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 193/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat

Showing 1–20 of 79 · Page 1 of 4

Limitation/Time-bar14

19 Aug 2025

AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 192/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 190/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 187/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 188/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

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

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 191/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income and rightly levied the penalty under the said section. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal. 27

KHODIYAR ORGANISERS, SURAT,SURAT vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-2(3), SURAT, SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 36/SRT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.36/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) M/S Khodiyar Organisers, Vs. Acit, Central Plaza, Near Om Terrace, Circle – 2(3), New City Light Road, Surat – Surat 395007, Gujarat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aakfk1498A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13/08/2025

Section 133ASection 139(5)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘in short, the Act’) dated 27.12.2023 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal) - 11, Ahmedabad [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

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

ITA 280/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No. 281/SRT/2022 is allowed. ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala 28. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.282/SRT/2022 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

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

ITA 282/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No. 281/SRT/2022 is allowed. ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala 28. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.282/SRT/2022 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts

PINKY MANISHKUMAR JARIWALA,SURAT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), SURAT

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

ITA 281/SRT/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Aug 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Dr. A. L. Sainiआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.280 To 282/Srt/2022 Assessment Years: (2009-10) (Physical Hearing) Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala, Vs. The Ito, 4/1710, Nawabwadi, Begampura, Ward – 2(2)(3), Surat – 395003. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ahnpj7591D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri P. M. Jagasheth, Ca Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 23/08/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2023

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1)(c) of the Act to the tune of Rs.12,50,901/-. 27. In the result, appeal filed by assessee in ITA No. 281/SRT/2022 is allowed. ITA.280 to 282/SRT/2022/AY.2009-10 Pinky Manishkumar Jariwala 28. Now coming to assessee’s appeal in ITA No.282/SRT/2022 wherein the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, are as follows: “1. On the facts

SHRI PRAKASH F.SINGH,,VAPI vs. THE ITO, WARD-7,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 618/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

SHRI GUFRAN AHMED CHAUDHARI,,VALSAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1,, VAPI

In the result, appeals of the Assessees (in ITA No

ITA 623/SRT/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.618/Srt/2018 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Prakash F Singh, The Income Tax Officer, V Ward-7, Room No.810, 8Th Floor, Rbl, 63/751, Chanod Colony, Gidc, S. Vapi-396195 Fortune Square-Ii, Vapi Daman Road, Chala, Vapi-396191 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.:Asnps 4835N (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri A. Gopalakrishnan,C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. AnupamaSingla– Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on the ground that penalty levied for both concealment as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income is double mind of the Assessing Officer. The Ld Counsel referred to the decisions of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samson Perinchery, 88 taxmann.com 413 and the decision

R.S. TRADELINK PVT.LTD.,SURAT vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, SURAT

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

ITA 2130/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Feb 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.2130/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Virtual Court Hearing) M/S. R.S. Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Plot No.17, Magdalla Port Road, Of Income Tax, Circle-4, Surat. Magdalla, Surat-395007. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcr6607A (Assessee) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah - CAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra - CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

u/s 271(1)(c ) of the Act, in the assessment order in respect of long term capital gain only for one limb, that is, concealment of income, vide para 9 of assessment order. However, in the penalty order under section 271(1) (c ) of the Act, the assessing officer has initiated the penalty for both limbs, that is, concealment

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3,, SURAT vs. M/S. IMPERIAL DEVELOPERS,, SURAT

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1992/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat25 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenas. आ.अ.सं./I.T.A अपीलाथ" Appellant Vs ""यथ"/Respondent No . No. & िनधा"रण . वष" /A Y: 1 1992/Ahd/2016 Deputy Commissioner Vs Imperial Developers, Of Income Tax, . ‘Blossom’ Near Vesu Canal A.Y. 2013-14 Central Opp.Dps School, Circle-3, Surat – 395 Vesu, Surat. 001. [Pan: Aadfi 5694 R] िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul Shah - Ca राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Srinivas T.Bidari – Sr.Dr

Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

27 January, 2009; is erroneous on the facts of the case. Unlike in that case no addition has been made to the total income returned nor the AO has build a case where it can be said that a portion of income has been taken away from the gaze of the revenue, as the AO has merely changed the head

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE ACIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 353/SRT/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 115JB of the Act.Considering the facts and circumstances available on record the assessing officer held that assessee has concealed the income of Rs. 34,26,806/-. Therefore, the assessing officer has worked out the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to the tune of Rs.6,35,330/-. 12. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed

HAMILTON HOUSEWARES PVT.LTD.,,SILVASA vs. THE DCIT.,VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 380/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Jun 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.380/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial Income Tax, S. Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) आयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.353/Srt/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Virtual Court Hearing) Hamilton Housewares Private Limited, V The Assistant Commissioner Of Plot No.49/50, Dan Udyog Industrial S. Income Tax, Estte, Amli, Piparia, Silvassa, U.T. Of D. Vapi Circle, Vapi. & N. H. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aabcd 1683 Q (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - Ca Respondent By : Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.Dr सुनवाईक"तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 23/06/2021 घोषणाक"तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28/06/2021 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini: Captioned Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertaining To Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2013-14 & (A.Y.) 2011-12, Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Which In Turn Arise Out Of Separate Assessment Order & Penalty Order Passed By The Ld.Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act & Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, Respectively.

For Appellant: Shri A.Gopala Krishnan - CAFor Respondent: Ms.Anupama Singla – Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80I

u/s 115JB of the Act.Considering the facts and circumstances available on record the assessing officer held that assessee has concealed the income of Rs. 34,26,806/-. Therefore, the assessing officer has worked out the penalty @ 100% of the tax sought to be evaded to the tune of Rs.6,35,330/-. 12. On appeal, the ld CIT(A) has confirmed

HETAL RAMANLAL SHAH,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1(2)(2), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1274/SRT/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat09 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Ms. Dalzin Madan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40A(3)(a)Section 40A(3)(b)

27,989/- under Section 40A(3)(a) of the Act and Rs. 15,45,212/- on account of disallowance under Section 40A(3)(b) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated against the assessee, for concealment of income. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before

BAYER VAPI PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS BILAG INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD.,),VAPI vs. THE A CIT., VAPI CIRCLE,, VAPI

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1688/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat27 Aug 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.1688/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bayer Vapi Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of (Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Income Tax, Private Limited), Plot No.306/3, Vapi Circle, Vapi. Phase-Ii, Vapi – 396 195, Gujarat. [Pan: Aabcb 2100 L] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri Mehul K Patel, Advocate & Shri A. Gopalakrishnan, Ca Shri Prasenjit Singh – Cit(Dr) राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 18.07.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On: 27.08.2019 आदेश /O R D E R Per O.P.Meena, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The 1. Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)- Valsad, Valsad(In Short “The Cit(A)”) Dated 31.03.2014 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2005-06. The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In Ita 2. No.1688/Ahd/2014 Read As Under : “01. The Appellant Company Has Neither Concealed Its Income Nor Submitted Any Inaccurate Particulars Of Income & The Adjustments/ Additions Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Is Contrary To The Facts Of The Case & Law & Deserves To Be Deleted. 02. On Appreciation Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(Formerly Known As Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.Acit-Vapi/Ita No.1688/Ahd/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 2 Of 20

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

section 271(1) Bayer Vapi Pvt. Ltd.,(formerly known as Bilag Industries Pvt. Ltd., Vs.ACIT-Vapi/ITA No.1688/AHD/2014: A.Y.2005-06 Page 13 of 20 (c) of the Act cannot be attracted. The ld.Counsel also relied in the case of T.Ashok Pai Vs. CIT [2007] 292 ITR 11 (SC), Gita Prints Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CIT [2013] 39 taxmann.com 393 (Guj) and Dahod Sahakari