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

46. The brief facts of the case have been mentioned in ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 and hence the same are not reiterated again for the sake of brevity. At the time of assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee on 12/12/2006

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

46. The brief facts of the case have been mentioned in ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 and hence the same are not reiterated again for the sake of brevity. At the time of assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee on 12/12/2006

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

46. The brief facts of the case have been mentioned in ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 and hence the same are not reiterated again for the sake of brevity. At the time of assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee on 12/12/2006

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

46. The brief facts of the case have been mentioned in ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 and hence the same are not reiterated again for the sake of brevity. At the time of assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee on 12/12/2006

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

46. The brief facts of the case have been mentioned in ITA No. 1032/Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2004-05 and hence the same are not reiterated again for the sake of brevity. At the time of assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act and notice was issued to the assessee on 12/12/2006

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

46 Taxmann.com 344 (Guj.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, by observing as under: ITA Nos.1741 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 115JB. of the Income-tax Act. 1961 Penalty - For concealment of income (Income

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

46 Taxmann.com 344 (Guj.), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act, by observing as under: ITA Nos.1741 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 “Section 271(1)(c), read with section 115JB. of the Income-tax Act. 1961 Penalty - For concealment of income (Income

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged capital gain of Rs.86,60,942 on account of undisclosed short term capital gain

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

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

46,82,342/- -- 17,04,037/- Sale and Leased Assets. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty orders, the assesse filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance of deduction u/s. 35E made by the Assessing Officer is upheld by the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case. Though the assessee claimed that there

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

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

46,82,342/- -- 17,04,037/- Sale and Leased Assets. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty orders, the assesse filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance of deduction u/s. 35E made by the Assessing Officer is upheld by the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case. Though the assessee claimed that there

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

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

46,82,342/- -- 17,04,037/- Sale and Leased Assets. 3. Aggrieved against the penalty orders, the assesse filed appeals before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) held that the disallowance of deduction u/s. 35E made by the Assessing Officer is upheld by the Hon’ble ITAT in assessee’s own case. Though the assessee claimed that there