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)

156/- -do- 2018-19 23-09-2022 5,76,17,811/- -do- 2019-20 23-09-2022 90,91,650/- -do- 4. Aggrieved against penalty orders the assessee filed appeals before Ld CIT[A] who deleted the penalties by passing detailed order after considering decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal as follows: “… 5.2. It is observed that

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)

156/- -do- 2018-19 23-09-2022 5,76,17,811/- -do- 2019-20 23-09-2022 90,91,650/- -do- 4. Aggrieved against penalty orders the assessee filed appeals before Ld CIT[A] who deleted the penalties by passing detailed order after considering decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal as follows: “… 5.2. It is observed that

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)

156/- -do- 2018-19 23-09-2022 5,76,17,811/- -do- 2019-20 23-09-2022 90,91,650/- -do- 4. Aggrieved against penalty orders the assessee filed appeals before Ld CIT[A] who deleted the penalties by passing detailed order after considering decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal as follows: “… 5.2. It is observed that

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

156) (SC). He submitted that the quantum proceeding and the penalty proceedings are different and merely because the addition has been confirmed in appeal, the same cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Submissions of the Revenue: 11. Per contra, Shri. Sher Singh, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that

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

156) (SC). He submitted that the quantum proceeding and the penalty proceedings are different and merely because the addition has been confirmed in appeal, the same cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Submissions of the Revenue: 11. Per contra, Shri. Sher Singh, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that

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

156) (SC). He submitted that the quantum proceeding and the penalty proceedings are different and merely because the addition has been confirmed in appeal, the same cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Submissions of the Revenue: 11. Per contra, Shri. Sher Singh, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that

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

156) (SC). He submitted that the quantum proceeding and the penalty proceedings are different and merely because the addition has been confirmed in appeal, the same cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Submissions of the Revenue: 11. Per contra, Shri. Sher Singh, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that

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

156) (SC). He submitted that the quantum proceeding and the penalty proceedings are different and merely because the addition has been confirmed in appeal, the same cannot be a ground for levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. Submissions of the Revenue: 11. Per contra, Shri. Sher Singh, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that

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

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\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

156/-\n-do-\n2018-19\n23-09-2022\n5,76,17,811/-\n-do-\n2019-20\n23-09-2022\n90,91,650/-\n-do-\n\n4.\nAggrieved against penalty orders the assessee filed appeals\nbefore Ld CIT[A] who deleted the penalties by passing detailed order\nafter considering decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal as\nfollows

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\nAnd Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

156/-\n-do-\n2018-19\n23-09-2022\n5,76,17,811/-\n-do-\n2019-20\n23-09-2022\n90,91,650/-\n-do-\n4.\nAggrieved against penalty orders the assessee filed appeals\nbefore Ld CIT[A] who deleted the penalties by passing detailed order\nafter considering decisions of various Benches of the Tribunal as\nfollows

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 07.08.2024 for A.Y.2015-16 by CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.2,20,32,156

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,SATELLITE vs. WARD 3(1)(2) AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 07.08.2024 for A.Y.2015-16 by CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.2,20,32,156

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar

penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Ys. 2015-16 and 2017-18. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 2. “1.1 The order passed u/s. 250 on 07.08.2024 for A.Y.2015-16 by CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.2,20,32,156

NALINI VIJAY SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO WARD 3(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result, all appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for\nstatistical purposes

156\ntagging the script of Prerna Infrabuild Ltd. as penny script without carrying out\nproper inquiries.\n4.1 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not set a\nsiding the assessment as per Section 251(1)(a) as the assessment was concluded ex\nparte under section 144.\n4.2 That in the law and/or

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-2, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V., ,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed

M/S. SHELL INTERNATIONAL B.V.,,MUMBAI vs. THE DY. CIT, INTL. TAXN.-1,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 195 and there was no question of advance tax payment by assessee and thus, no interest under Section 234B could be levied upon assessee. ITA Nos. 2788/Ahd/2017 & 09 others Shell International BV vs. DCIT(International Taxation) & 09 others Asst. Years –2009-10 to 2018-19 47. In the result, Ground No. 7 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed