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

u/s. 115JB instead of under normal provisions. Thus, Ground No. 14 is dismissed." ITA Nos.1741 & 1750/Ahd/2019 (by Assessee) and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year- 2009-10 9.2. In view of above facts, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer on this account is confirmed with the same rider as underlined above. Thus, Ground No. 4.1 is dismissed

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

u/s 14A?\n\n2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,64,686/- on account of repairing expenses.\n\n3. The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on the issue of addition of Rs.94,71,966/- in total income as per provisions

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

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

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

section 250 of the Act has erred in not adjudicating on the above ground of appeal raised with respect to non-jurisdiction of learned jurisdictional AO to conduct penalty proceedings. Thus, the impugned order passed by Hon'ble CII(A) is palpably arbitrary, unjustifiable and in gross violation of law. The Appellant craves leave to add to amend, alter, delete

WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ACIT.,CIRCLE-4,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

115 of the said order. Vide para 8 on page 7 of the said order, the Hon'ble ITAT has also held that the cross objections filed in seven cases as also dismissed are the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed as not maintainable and not admitted. It is further held that the cross objections are merely supporting

M/S. WORLD TRADE IMPEX LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5,, BARODA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmed

115 of the said order. Vide para 8 on page 7 of the said order, the Hon'ble ITAT has also held that the cross objections filed in seven cases as also dismissed are the appeal filed by the Department is dismissed as not maintainable and not admitted. It is further held that the cross objections are merely supporting

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED, MEHSANA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

UTTAR GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED,MEHSANA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, Ground No

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the same are consequential, hence not adjudicated at this juncture. 48. Therefore, ITA No. 446/Ahd/2018 for A.Y. 2014-15 filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.” 18. In the result, Ground No. 3 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. Ground No. 4: claim

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER KNOWN AS FAG BEARINGS INDIA LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2) NOW CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

Appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes and Department’s appeals are dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 13) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 5. At the outset, the Counsel for the assessee submitted that in respect of Grounds 6 to 9 of the assessee’s appeal (Refund of excess