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

22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

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

22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

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

22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

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

22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

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

22 of the Act. 7. The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on the facts of the in assuming jurisdiction in recording satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act while passing the appellate order without taking into cognizance of the provisions of sub-section (1) to S.271D

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 levied on such issue. 3.4 Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had made all the relevant disclosures and that the claim was made on a reasonable and bona fide belief, therefore no penalty ought to be levied. ITA Nos.1741

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 levied on such issue. 3.4 Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the Appellant had made all the relevant disclosures and that the claim was made on a reasonable and bona fide belief, therefore no penalty ought to be levied. ITA Nos.1741

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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

22. With respect to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA with regards to undisclosed capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

22. With respect to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA with regards to undisclosed capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

22. With respect to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA with regards to undisclosed capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

22. With respect to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA with regards to undisclosed capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

22. With respect to levy of penalty under Section 271AAA with regards to undisclosed capital gain on sale of land amounting to Rs. 1,89,43,840/-, we have, in the preceding paragraphs while discussing the appeal of assessee’s brother, Shri Rohit C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA