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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

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

5. First, we shall take up the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1785/Ahd/2019. ITA Nos.1741 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 5.1. Ground No.1 is pertaining to deletion of Rs.4,22,27,759/- on selling and distributing expenses wherein penalty u/s. 271[1][c] was levied for furnishing 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

5. First, we shall take up the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No.1785/Ahd/2019. ITA Nos.1741 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 5.1. Ground No.1 is pertaining to deletion of Rs.4,22,27,759/- on selling and distributing expenses wherein penalty u/s. 271[1][c] was levied for furnishing 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.

5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty by the AO by observing as under: 7.8.1 In this case, the appellant had filed his original return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act on 27.04.2010 declaring total income of Rs.70,71,749/- Subsequently, a search action in the case of Accommodation

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.

5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty by the AO by observing as under: 7.8.1 In this case, the appellant had filed his original return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act on 27.04.2010 declaring total income of Rs.70,71,749/- Subsequently, a search action in the case of Accommodation

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.

5. On appeal by the assessee, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the levy of penalty by the AO by observing as under: 7.8.1 In this case, the appellant had filed his original return of income u/s 139(4) of the Act on 27.04.2010 declaring total income of Rs.70,71,749/- Subsequently, a search action in the case of Accommodation

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

5,13,883/- Add: Unexplained credit in the banks Rs.4,48,378/- Total Income Rs.10,53,891/- 14. Appeal to the CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 15. The ld.counsel for the assessee at the very outset submitted that time limit for issuing the statutory notice under section 143(2) for passing scrutiny assessment under section