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

15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy

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

15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy

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

15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy

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

15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy

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

15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction for levy

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

SHELL GLOBAL SOLUTIONS INTERNATIONAL B.V,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

The appeal of the assessee is allowed and CO filed by the Department is being dismissed for assessment year 2010-11

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act levying penalty of " 89,90,233/- on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 8. In the appeal against the penalty order passed by the AO, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) dismissed the assessee’s appeal with the following observations: Decision: The contention of the Appellant is not accepted for tin following reasons

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

DHARMENBHAI MAHENDRABHAI SUTARIA,HUF,AHMEDABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), , AHMEDABAD

In the result appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalasstt. Sr.No.

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments

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), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block