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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is concerned, we are of the view that it is a fit case were penalty is liable to be deleted. 42. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in ITA No. 211/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2005-06. Now we shall take up ITA No. 212/Ahd/2020 (Ashokji Chanduji Thakore

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 16. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that he has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. Similarly, the addition made by the AO on account of low house hold expenses was based on estimated basis. As far as the addition

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 16. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that he has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. Similarly, the addition made by the AO on account of low house hold expenses was based on estimated basis. As far as the addition

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 16. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that he has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. Similarly, the addition made by the AO on account of low house hold expenses was based on estimated basis. As far as the addition

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 16. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that he has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. Similarly, the addition made by the AO on account of low house hold expenses was based on estimated basis. As far as the addition

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

Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that: .1 The addition made to the transfer price by adopting a diverse method (Profit split method) as against the one adopted by the Appellant (Transactional Net Margin Method) resulted due to difference of opinion

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

Section 271(1) of the Act. 3.4 The learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty levied by the AO without appreciating that: .1 The addition made to the transfer price by adopting a diverse method (Profit split method) as against the one adopted by the Appellant (Transactional Net Margin Method) resulted due to difference of opinion

VIJAYBHAI DASHRATHBHAI PATEL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Us: -

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) is liable to be deleted. The assessee placed reliance on the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court decision in the case of Chhaganlal S. Suteriya Vs. ITO 337 ITR 350 (Guj) in support of his contention that the conditions enumerated in Explanation 3 to section 271(1)(c) are cumulative. The assessee further relied on case

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

u/s 271(1)© of the Act. The relevant findings of the Hon’ble court at para 10-15 of the order is as under: 10. A plain reading of section 271(1) of the Act shows that if the AO or any of the officers specified under the said sub-section, in the course of any proceedings under

MAHAVEER SINGH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PCIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby dismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act has rendered, the assessment order erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The relevant finding of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is reproduced as under: "5. We have heard Shri A.N. Mahajan, the learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue and Shri Rishi Raj Kapoor, leamed counsel

PARAG V. CHUGH,,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1,, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act to the returned income under section 153A of the Act, and therefore appellant cannot be treated to be assessee concealing income. 1.02 Your appellant prays to hold so now and delete the impugned penalty. 2.00 YOUR APPELLANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND /OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND(S) TAKE HEREINABOVE

PARAG V. CHUGH,,GODHRA vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL-1,, BARODA

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153A of the Act to the returned income under section 153A of the Act, and therefore appellant cannot be treated to be assessee concealing income. 1.02 Your appellant prays to hold so now and delete the impugned penalty. 2.00 YOUR APPELLANY CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND /OR DELETE ALL OR ANY GROUND(S) TAKE HEREINABOVE