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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(14) of the Act was not available. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.06.2017, the Ld. AO also imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 treating the addition of Rs. 1,90,16,868/-as representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty-order dated

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

section. The assessee’s alternative claim is that if the 1/10th deduction u/s. 35E Rs. 35,37,800/- is not allowed then the entire expenditure of Rs. 7,78,31,600/- is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The above contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the same is added as the income of the assessee

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

section. The assessee’s alternative claim is that if the 1/10th deduction u/s. 35E Rs. 35,37,800/- is not allowed then the entire expenditure of Rs. 7,78,31,600/- is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The above contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the same is added as the income of the assessee

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

section. The assessee’s alternative claim is that if the 1/10th deduction u/s. 35E Rs. 35,37,800/- is not allowed then the entire expenditure of Rs. 7,78,31,600/- is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The above contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the same is added as the income of the assessee

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

section. The assessee’s alternative claim is that if the 1/10th deduction u/s. 35E Rs. 35,37,800/- is not allowed then the entire expenditure of Rs. 7,78,31,600/- is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The above contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the same is added as the income of the assessee

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

section 271(1)© and interpreting the same held that only on fulfillment of all conditions specified therein would penalty u/s 271(1)© be levied for no filing of return of income originally even if subsequently the assessee files the same in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Hon’ble High Court noted that for penalty

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 2,76,33,870.\n9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty despite the fact that the Appellant has not furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income either in return of income or during the course of\nassessment proceedings.\n10. The learned

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD, GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Act. However, on perusal of such penalty order, there is complete lack of satisfaction on part of Assessing Officer to record which were material documents/information which were not provided to the TPO for such purchase transactions. The AO has merely mentioned that appellant has failed to maintain documents specified in Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Act. However, on perusal of such penalty order, there is complete lack of satisfaction on part of Assessing Officer to record which were material documents/information which were not provided to the TPO for such purchase transactions. The AO has merely mentioned that appellant has failed to maintain documents specified in Section

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD, GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Act. However, on perusal of such penalty order, there is complete lack of satisfaction on part of Assessing Officer to record which were material documents/information which were not provided to the TPO for such purchase transactions. The AO has merely mentioned that appellant has failed to maintain documents specified in Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), GUJARAT vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Act. However, on perusal of such penalty order, there is complete lack of satisfaction on part of Assessing Officer to record which were material documents/information which were not provided to the TPO for such purchase transactions. The AO has merely mentioned that appellant has failed to maintain documents specified in Section

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. PRIYA BLUE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., GUJARAT

In the result the appeals filed by the Revenue in ITA No

Bench: Shri T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

142(1) of the Act. However, on perusal of such penalty order, there is complete lack of satisfaction on part of Assessing Officer to record which were material documents/information which were not provided to the TPO for such purchase transactions. The AO has merely mentioned that appellant has failed to maintain documents specified in Section

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, BARODA vs. RUBAMIN LIMITED.,, BARODA

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the I. T. Act by holding that neither explanation 1 to section 271(1)(c) nor the main section itself supported the levy of penalty by the A.O. Whereas, the Hon'ble ITAT, 1-Bench, Ahmedabad had confirmed the order of the A.O. for treating the above expanse of Rs.2,51,62,142

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