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

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 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

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

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

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

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

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act ought to be levied on such issue.\n\n3.4 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

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 2,76,33,870.\n9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty despite the fact that the Appellant has not furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income either in return of income or during the course of\nassessment proceedings.\n10. The learned

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

section of the Act. Therefore the\nassessee requested that the entire penalty proceedings is liable to\nbe dropped.\n2. 2. Without considering the above reply and non-application of\nmind, the AO issued second notice u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act dated\n07-09-2023. Again, the assessee vide its reply dated 22-09-2023\nrequested to drop the penalty

THE ACIT(E),CIRCLE-2 , AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these

ACIT(E), CIRCLE-2, AHMEDABAD, AHMEDABAD vs. VADODARA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY , VADODARA

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

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years 2009–10, 2011-12, 2013-14 I.T.A Nos. 388, 379,/Ahd/2023 and Ors. A.Ys. 2009-10, 2011-12 and Ors. Page No 2 ACIT(E) Vs. Vadodara Urban Development Authority & 2014-15. Since common issue is involved in all these