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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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. 271(1)(c) is not imposable on this account and accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. Thus, appellant succeeds in respect of Ground No. 8. " 7.1. In view of above facts, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. Hence it stands cancelled.” 6. Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing

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. 271(1)(c) is not imposable on this account and accordingly the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the same. Thus, appellant succeeds in respect of Ground No. 8. " 7.1. In view of above facts, the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable. Hence it stands cancelled.” 6. Ld. Senior Counsel Shri S.N. Soparkar appearing

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

144 of the Act on 21.01.2013 determining total income at Rs.1,59,41,190/-. The Assessing Officer invoked penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty vide order dated 26.07.2013. Both the quantum addition as well as penalty imposed upon the assessee was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) decided

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

AKAR LAMINATORS LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: This Tribunal & The Case Was Set-Aside Vide Order Dated 01.08.2014 In Ita No. 858 & 927/Ahd/2005 & Accordingly Assessment Was Finalized U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 254 Of The Act & The Total Loss Was Determined At (-) Rs.22,47,26,293/- After Making Following Additions/Disallowances:

penalty order passed under section 271[1][C] of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2001-02. I.T.A No. 600/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2001-02 Page No 2 Akar Laminators Ltd. vs. DCIT 2. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is a company engaged in the manufacturing

DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(4), AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. KGN INDUSTRIES LTD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal field by the Revenue is allowed

Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Thus determined the assessed income as Rs. 1,68,10,620/- u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and also charged interest of u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144 on 19.05.2022, adding ₹7,32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144 on 19.05.2022, adding ₹7,32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

144 on 19.05.2022, adding ₹7,32,68,860/- to the total income of the assessee on a protective basis as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271