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

20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required to be imposed Repayment

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

20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required to be imposed Repayment

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

20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required to be imposed Repayment

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

20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required to be imposed Repayment

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

20,000/- in cash is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271E of the Act is provided. The ld. CIT(A) issued show cause notice dated 11-03- 2013 asking the assessee to provide an explanation in respect of the transactions tabulated below:- Transaction Amount in Section under Amount of Rs. which penalty penalty in Rs. required to be imposed Repayment

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned in Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned in Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned in Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

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

penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned in Explanation 7 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary

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

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) 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 that the decision

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) 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 that the decision

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law upholding the penalty levied on additions

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law upholding the penalty levied on additions

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law upholding the penalty levied on additions

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law upholding the penalty levied on additions

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

20. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order u/s. 271AAA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 30.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law upholding the penalty levied on additions