GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

194-1 and 194J without reasonable cause - Held, yes – Whether, therefore, no penalty could be levied upon assessee under section 271 C - Held, yes” 6.2 Respectfully following the order of the Pune Bench and judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we delete the penalty. ITA Nos.2846 & 2847/Ahd/2014 Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year

GUJARAT ALKALIES AND CHEMICALS LTD.,,BARODA vs. THE ADDL. CIT, TDS RANGE,, BARODA

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

194-1 and 194J without reasonable cause - Held, yes – Whether, therefore, no penalty could be levied upon assessee under section 271 C - Held, yes” 6.2 Respectfully following the order of the Pune Bench and judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, we delete the penalty. ITA Nos.2846 & 2847/Ahd/2014 Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd. vs. ACIT Asst.Year

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-2 TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

KESHAVPRIYA CORP PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ADDL.CIT, TDS, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta& Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

u/s 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) was not justified in passing the impugned Order without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the Appellant.” 4. Before us, the Counsel for the assessee filed request for adjournment. While seeking for adjournment, the assessee has given a vague

SUMMIT (INDIA) WATER TREATMENT & SERVICES LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT-4, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

194 or 195 shall not be I.T.A No. 1338/Ahd/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 Page No 8 Summit (India) Water Treatment & Services Ltd. vs. Principal CIT applicable. It is also contended that it is demonstrated from the above referred material furnished before the assessing officer that the assessee has made payment to the Indian agents of the shipping company for which

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

194 and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of IT act. The relevant extract of the said appeal order in para-six is quoted below- "There is large number of debit and credit transactions. Meaning thereby, the appellant has given and received funds as and when required

THE ACIT,(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

194 and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of IT act. The relevant extract of the said appeal order in para-six is quoted below- "There is large number of debit and credit transactions. Meaning thereby, the appellant has given and received funds as and when required

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

194 and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of IT act. The relevant extract of the said appeal order in para-six is quoted below- "There is large number of debit and credit transactions. Meaning thereby, the appellant has given and received funds as and when required

DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LIMITED,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, (OSD),RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

194 and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of IT act. The relevant extract of the said appeal order in para-six is quoted below- "There is large number of debit and credit transactions. Meaning thereby, the appellant has given and received funds as and when required

THE DCIT(OSD)RANGE-1,, AHMEDABAD vs. DISHMAN PHARMACEUTICALS & CHEMICALS LTD.,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, we allow appeal of the assessee and delete penalty confirmed by the ld

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singh

194 and therefore the assessee cannot be treated as the assessee in default within the meaning of section 201(1) of IT act. The relevant extract of the said appeal order in para-six is quoted below- "There is large number of debit and credit transactions. Meaning thereby, the appellant has given and received funds as and when required

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having understanding with the supplier wherein

THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI SANJAY KISHANLAL BISHNOI,, AHMEDABAD

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. (Addition of Rs. 1,80,69,095/-)” AYs:2014-15 & 2015-16 Sh. Sanjay Kishanlal Bishnoi 4.4 The AO on examination of the details, material, SCN , concluded that the assessee was involved in the undervaluation of imports. The assessee was having understanding with the supplier wherein

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the amount Rs. 1,26,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. and his order is thus prima facie devoid of merits and contrary to law and needs to be quashed and prayed for accordingly. [5] The appellant therefore requests your good self to kindly delete the above- mentioned additions

PROLIFE INDUSTRIES LTD.,ANKLESHWAR vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

penalty under section 271(1)(c) on the amount Rs. 1,26,00,000/- made by the Ld. A.O. and his order is thus prima facie devoid of merits and contrary to law and needs to be quashed and prayed for accordingly. [5] The appellant therefore requests your good self to kindly delete the above- mentioned additions

TORRENT POWER LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT.,RANGE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result cross objection filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmed

u/s. 271(1)(c). He ought to have appreciated, inter alia, that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, there being absolutely no warrant/justification for initiating the penalty proceedings, they deserved to be dropped, thereby saving both the appellant and the Department from long drawn unnecessary litigation. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend and/or

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCEL-1,, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted

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 dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) r.w. Explanation-7 are hereby initiated.” 24. Being aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT (A), the Assessee is in appeal before us. 25. The Ld. AR before us submitted that in the identical facts and circumstances in the own case of the assessee in ITA No. 1666/AHD/2016 the impugned addition was deleted