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

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

115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 19.3 Thus following the above observation of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court , the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 has decided the issue with respect to the exclusion of remuneration received from the partnership firm while calculating the profit under the provisions of section 115JB

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

115 JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 19.3 Thus following the above observation of Hon’ble Kolkata High Court , the ITAT in the own case of the assessee for the A.Y. 2011-12 has decided the issue with respect to the exclusion of remuneration received from the partnership firm while calculating the profit under the provisions of section 115JB

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

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

u/s. 263 of the Act and the rest of the reasons still applied post amendment.. The decisions of the jurisdictional High Court were accordingly held to apply post amendment to section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The relevant findings of the order of ITAT in the case of Easy Transcription & Software

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

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

SAVALIYA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

115(Kar)], addition was made u/s. 69B r.w.s. 147 on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land. Search was conducted in the case of son of vendor from whom the land was purchased. During the course of search, son of vendor stated that assessee had received consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. AO reopened assessment and made addition on the basis

M/S. SAVALIYA BUILDCON,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),, AHMEDABAD

Appeals are dismissed whereas assessee’s three appeals and three cross objections are allowed

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad

115(Kar)], addition was made u/s. 69B r.w.s. 147 on account of unexplained investment in purchase of land. Search was conducted in the case of son of vendor from whom the land was purchased. During the course of search, son of vendor stated that assessee had received consideration of Rs.75 lakhs. AO reopened assessment and made addition on the basis

DHANLABH TRADING PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

271(1)(c) of the act was upheld on the ground that there was no impact on the tax liability of the assessee u/s. 115JB of the act. Further, we have also perused the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT vide ITA No. 2330/Ahd/2015 in the case of DCIT vs. Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam Ltd. where on identical

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

TROIKAA PHARAMACEUTICLAS LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD),RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

115 WJ and 115WK of the Act is akin to the levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the IT Act 1961. The levy of interest as applicable is mandatory. The AO does not have any discretion whether to charge interest or not under the aforesaid sections. In the case of Anjum M H Ghaswala reported

LOPAMUDRA JAYENDRABHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3)(2),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Smt Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3538/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Lopamudra Jayendrabhai The Income Tax बनाम/ Patel, Officer, Vs. C/O. Arjun Stores, Ward – 1(3)(2), 8, Chaitanyanagar, Nr. Petrol Ahmedabad. Pump, Stadium Road, Ahmedabad. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abapp 0521 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) --None-- अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr. D.R.

section 271(1)(b) of the Act vide letter dated 19.3.2015, but there was no response from her side. Therefore the AO imposed the penalty for Rs.10,000/- for the default committed by the assessee as discussed above. 5. Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The assessee before the ld. CIT-A submitted that

SHREE RAMA MULTI-TECH LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT(OSD) CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is not justified. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.” 45. The assessee vide letter dated 31-03-2020 has raised the additional ground of appeal