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

10. In the result, the ground no. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. 11. Regarding Ground No. 6 in respect of addition of Rs. 1,09,200/- u/s. 22 of the act as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the ld. counsel for the assessee has already submitted before us that the Department has already granted 30% standard deduction u/s

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

10. In the result, the ground no. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. 11. Regarding Ground No. 6 in respect of addition of Rs. 1,09,200/- u/s. 22 of the act as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the ld. counsel for the assessee has already submitted before us that the Department has already granted 30% standard deduction u/s

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

10. In the result, the ground no. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. 11. Regarding Ground No. 6 in respect of addition of Rs. 1,09,200/- u/s. 22 of the act as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the ld. counsel for the assessee has already submitted before us that the Department has already granted 30% standard deduction u/s

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

10. In the result, the ground no. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. 11. Regarding Ground No. 6 in respect of addition of Rs. 1,09,200/- u/s. 22 of the act as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the ld. counsel for the assessee has already submitted before us that the Department has already granted 30% standard deduction u/s

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

10. In the result, the ground no. 5 of the assessee is dismissed. 11. Regarding Ground No. 6 in respect of addition of Rs. 1,09,200/- u/s. 22 of the act as noted in the preceding paragraphs, the ld. counsel for the assessee has already submitted before us that the Department has already granted 30% standard deduction u/s

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

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

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

10. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the CIT and AO in their respective orders while upholding levy of penalty. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. During the course of arguments, the Bench called for further information with regard to the price being charged by 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

10. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the CIT and AO in their respective orders while upholding levy of penalty. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. During the course of arguments, the Bench called for further information with regard to the price being charged by 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

10. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the CIT and AO in their respective orders while upholding levy of penalty. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. During the course of arguments, the Bench called for further information with regard to the price being charged by 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

10. In response, the Ld. DR placed reliance on the observations made by the CIT and AO in their respective orders while upholding levy of penalty. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. During the course of arguments, the Bench called for further information with regard to the price being charged by the assessee

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

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

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