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

38 taxmann.com 15 itself, after considering the other two decisions relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative, has held that non-framing of specific charge may be proper in issuing a notice for initiating the penalty, but while imposing the penalty there has to be a specific charge as to whether penalty is imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

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.

38 taxmann.com 203 (Madras), the Madras High Court held that where in search no incriminating material was found which would suggest unexplained income or there was no recovery of cash or amount from assessee, levy of penalty 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

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.

38 taxmann.com 203 (Madras), the Madras High Court held that where in search no incriminating material was found which would suggest unexplained income or there was no recovery of cash or amount from assessee, levy of penalty 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

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.

38 taxmann.com 203 (Madras), the Madras High Court held that where in search no incriminating material was found which would suggest unexplained income or there was no recovery of cash or amount from assessee, levy of penalty 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

10% of the impugned addition and the same was also confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) as well. 14. Before us, the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the underlying addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, it was submitted that though there can be “protective addition” in the hands

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

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

38 taxmann.com 15 itself, after considering the other two decisions relied upon by the Ld. Authorized Representative, has held that non-framing of specific charge may be proper in issuing a notice for initiating the penalty, but while imposing the penalty there has to be a specific charge as to whether penalty is imposed for furnishing of inaccurate particulars

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. SANJAY PRATAPRAI MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

271(1)(c) of the Act. The Revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1. In the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in directing to delete the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) holding that the issue has been decided in favour of appellant by the Hon’ble ITAT, consequential penalty u/s.271

INDIAN CHRONICLE LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-4(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal ofthe assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1275/Ahd/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08) Indian Chronicle Ltd. बनाम/ Ito Gujarat Samacharbhavan, Ward4(3), Ahmedabad Vs. Khanpur,Ahmedabad - 380001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaci0793H (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate & अपीलाथ" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Parimalsinh B. Parmar, A.R. Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondentby: Date Of Hearing 28/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2024

10. We have carefully considered the rival submissions.The first ground taken by the assessee is in respect of validity of the penalty order passed by the AO. The assesse has contended that the penalty proceeding was initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income, whereas penalty order u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Actwas passed for concealment of income

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the IT Act was denied to the appellant, the appellant had filed an appeal with the First Appellate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the IT Act was denied to the appellant, the appellant had filed an appeal with the First Appellate

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) amounting to Rs.7,97,59.946/-. During the course of appellate proceedings, it was informed that for the said year under consideration against the quantum addition made u/s 143(3)/147 dated 29.12.2016 where the exemption claimed u/s 11 of the IT Act was denied to the appellant, the appellant had filed an appeal with the First Appellate