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 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

BARODA CRICKET ASSOCIATION,,VADODARA vs. THE DY. CIT, (EXEMPTION), CIRCLE-2,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, appeal is allowed

penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act.” 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the issues in appeal are covered, in favour of the assessee, by a decision of the coordinate bench in the case of Gujarat Cricket Association & Ors* (*including Baroda Cricket Association) Vs. JCIT [(2019) 101 taxmann.com 45 (Ahd)] wherein it was, inter alia, observed as follows

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

2. The penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be deleted 3. Addition of provision for doubtful debts and advances while calculating book profits under section 115JB 3.1 The penalty levied on addition of provision for doubtful debts and advances while calculating book profits under section 115JB ought to be deleted.” 19. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted

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

2. The penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be deleted 3. Addition of provision for doubtful debts and advances while calculating book profits under section 115JB 3.1 The penalty levied on addition of provision for doubtful debts and advances while calculating book profits under section 115JB ought to be deleted.” 19. Ld. Sr. Counsel submitted

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

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

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in relation to the penalty levied on account of the transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in relation to the penalty levied on account of the transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in relation to the penalty levied on account of the transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon

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

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, in relation to the penalty levied on account of the transfer pricing adjustment, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon

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