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

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ROHITJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

SHRI ASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed.” 41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act is also allowed for statistical purposes. 22. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal for A.Y. 2018-19: “1. The Learned CIT(A) also erred in dismissing the appeal as time-barred without appreciating that the delay was due to bona fide belief of exemption under section 10(23C)(iiiab)/(iiiac

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

26,41,92,634/- on which penalty was levied by TPO and ALP is determined at the value declared by the assessee. He further submitted that AO has levied penalty u/s 271AA on the ground that assessee had failed to report The interactional Transactions and had initialed the penalty by invoking Clause (ii) and (m) of Section 271AA