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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of " 45,80,841/- made on account of higher profit attributable to project office (PO). The brief facts in relation to this Grounds of Appeal are that during the year under consideration, the Appellant under its contract with Center for High Technology ('CHT') was required to render certain supervisory services

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on addition of " 45,80,841/- made on account of higher profit attributable to project office (PO). The brief facts in relation to this Grounds of Appeal are that during the year under consideration, the Appellant under its contract with Center for High Technology ('CHT') was required to render certain supervisory services

THE DCIT,(OSD)-1, CIRCLE-4,, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT.LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act. The first issue raised by the assessee in ground no-1 of its cross objection is that the learned CIT (A) erred in holding that the assessee is not eligible to claim deduction under section 10B

THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, BARODA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LIMITED,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

u/s 10B 504 12 Disallowances of repair expenses 1,017,500 13 Disallowances of leave encashment 3,998,673 14 Disallowances under section 14A 36,066,172 2.2 The amount of penalty was levied by the AO under section 271

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

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

u/s 10B 504 12 Disallowances of repair expenses 1,017,500 13 Disallowances of leave encashment 3,998,673 14 Disallowances under section 14A 36,066,172 2.2 The amount of penalty was levied by the AO under section 271

THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-1(3),, BARODA vs. M/S. FINE LINE CIRCUIT COMPANY,, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short “the Act”. 2. The solitary ground of appeal of the revenue is against the decision of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the penalty of Rs. 69,72,735/- levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the act against the wrong claim of deduction u/s. 10B

SHRI VIJAY D. PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE CIT-7,, AHMEDABAD

10B.” 6.6 In view of the above, it is clear that post amendment to section 271(1)(c) w.e.f. 1-4-2002 authorizing the commissioner also initiate penalty u/s

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty order was passed by the AO on 30.3.2012. 29. First we take ITA No.817/Ahd/2011 filed by the Revenue. However, if any ground found to be inter-connected with ground of appeal taken by the assessee, then we will take up those grounds together. 30. In the first ground of appeal, grievance

VISHWAS SHUKLA, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. MIDVALLEY HEALTHCARE SERVICES PVT. LTD., AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Midvalley Healthcare Services The Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Vs. 51, 5Th Floor, New York Tower, Central Circle-2(3), S.G Road, Thaltej, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad, Gujarat Pan : Aaecm 7777 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 31.01.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07.02.2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Gupta: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-12, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.06.2023 Passed U/S 250(6) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11. 2. The Only Effective Ground Raised In This Appeal Is Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Deleting The Penalty Of Rs.4,30,72,029/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act, By Not Appreciating That The Department Is Presently In Appeal Before The High Court Of Gujarat Against The Order Passed By Hon’Ble Itat Deleting The Quantum Addition.

Section 10B of the Act, penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act was completed by the Assessing Officer vide

M/S. DESCHEM TECHNOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRIVATE LIMITED,,BARODA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2),, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for the statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1551/Ahd/2016 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2005-2006 M/S Deschem Technologies Resources I.T.O., Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ward-1(2), 106 To 108, Baroda. Shreeji Avenue, Opp. New India Mill, Jetapur Road, Baroda-390035. Pan: Aabcd7163P

u/s 68 of the Act to the tune of Rs.1, 18, 06.330/-although necessary conditions such as identity of the persons, genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the persons advancing loans are fulfilled. While doing so, the Id CIT (Appeals) out rightly rejected the additional evidences furnished by the appellant although the same was covered by Rule

KIRI DYES & CHEMICALS LTD. ,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1232/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2003-04)

u/s. 271 [1](c) of the Act ?” Having heard Ms. Paurami Sheth, learned advocate appearing for the appellant- Revenue and Shri Manish J. Shah, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent and considering the impugned judgment and order dated 24th July ITA No. 1232/Ahd/18 [Kiri Dyes and Chemicals Ltd. Vs. Pr.CIT] A.Y. 2003-04 - 5 - 2009 passed

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KHEDA CIRCLE,, KHEDA vs. ADF FOODS LTD.,, KHEDA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

section 10B without duly considering the remand report submitted by the: Assessing Officer, and the A.O.'s finding that the assessee had failed to demonstrate that it had received approval from the Board appointed in this behalf by the Central Government, for the period under consideration, and was not eligible for deduction u/s 10B considering the decision

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s. 271(1)(c) on various grounds on which the enhancement was made, 15. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, amend or delete any ground of appeal at or before the hearing of this appeal. 5. The 1st issue raised by the assessee in ground No. 1 is general and does not require any separate adjudication. Therefore