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

income. The assessee placed reliance on the case of Reliance Petro-products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Regarding penalty of business expenditure of Rs. 5,82,162/-, the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271

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

income. The assessee placed reliance on the case of Reliance Petro-products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Regarding penalty of business expenditure of Rs. 5,82,162/-, the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271

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

income. The assessee placed reliance on the case of Reliance Petro-products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Regarding penalty of business expenditure of Rs. 5,82,162/-, the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271

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

income. The assessee placed reliance on the case of Reliance Petro-products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Regarding penalty of business expenditure of Rs. 5,82,162/-, the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271

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

income. The assessee placed reliance on the case of Reliance Petro-products Ltd. 322 ITR 158 (SC). Regarding penalty of business expenditure of Rs. 5,82,162/-, the ld. counsel submitted that Assessing Officer has not found any fault with the genuineness of such expenses and therefore under such circumstances no penalty can be levied u/s. 271

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.57,49,50,297/- and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The appellant had preferred appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A)-II, Vadodara and further the appellant and revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Hon'ble ITAT

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BARODA

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

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri T.R.Senthil Kumar

Income-tax Act, 1961 of Rs.57,49,50,297/- and penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The appellant had preferred appeal against the assessment order before the CIT(A)-II, Vadodara and further the appellant and revenue preferred appeal against the order of the CIT(A) before the Hon'ble ITAT

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2003-04 to I.T.A Nos. 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 Page No 2 Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 2006-07. As common issues are involved in the above appeals the same

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2003-04 to I.T.A Nos. 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 Page No 2 Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 2006-07. As common issues are involved in the above appeals the same

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2003-04 to I.T.A Nos. 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 Page No 2 Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 2006-07. As common issues are involved in the above appeals the same

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2003-04 to I.T.A Nos. 1860 to 1863/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2006-07 Page No 2 Gujarat Power Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 2006-07. As common issues are involved in the above appeals the same

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

business income as stated supra. The AO has subsequently levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) on such addition and ITA No. 799/Ahd/2019

DEVENDRA NARENDRABHAI THAKKER,,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-5(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 762/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Devendra Narendrabhai Acit, बनाम/ Thakker, Cir – 5(2), Vs. C/O Maffick Logistics, 228, Ahmedabad. Akshar Arcade, Opp. Memnagar Fire Station, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad-14 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abfpt 6354 E .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Jyotish M. Shah, A.R. ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.D.R.

business of forwarding and customs clearance. He filed his return of income dated 29/09/2011 declaring total income of Rs. 43,83,330/- only. The income tax return of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act at the income declared in return. Subsequently, the case of the assessee was selected under scrutiny and accordingly, notices u/s

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

business of dealing in construction, telecom & infrastructure work filed its return of income on 04.10.2010 declaring total income at Rs.48,33,544/- which was ultimately finalized inter alia with the following disallowance: Total income as per return of income Rs. 48,33,544/- Add:- Additions / Disallowances (i) As discussed in para 4 Rs. 30,250/- (ii) As discussed in para

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee entered into an integrated refinery business improvement contract with the CHT which was aimed at improving the performance of certain PSU oil refineries. The services under the said contract was predominantly performed from the assessee’s office outside of India. As per the contract, the assessee

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. In the instant case, the assessee entered into an integrated refinery business improvement contract with the CHT which was aimed at improving the performance of certain PSU oil refineries. The services under the said contract was predominantly performed from the assessee’s office outside of India. As per the contract, the assessee