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

26 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 2. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 3. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating and levying penalty

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

26 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 2. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 3. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating and levying penalty

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

26 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 2. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 3. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating and levying penalty

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

26 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 2. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 3. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating and levying penalty

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

26 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO 2. In any case, the impugned penalty order is barred by limitation and thus without jurisdiction and illegal. 3. In any case, quantification of the penalty is erroneous and excessive. 4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in initiating and levying penalty

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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

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