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

23 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO even if addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings, then no case is made out for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The ld. counsel for the assessee cited various case laws in support of his contention that mere fact addition has been confirmed in quantum proceedings does not straightway result penalty u/s. 271

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

23 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO even if addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings, then no case is made out for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The ld. counsel for the assessee cited various case laws in support of his contention that mere fact addition has been confirmed in quantum proceedings does not straightway result penalty u/s. 271

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

23 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO even if addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings, then no case is made out for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The ld. counsel for the assessee cited various case laws in support of his contention that mere fact addition has been confirmed in quantum proceedings does not straightway result penalty u/s. 271

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

23 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO even if addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings, then no case is made out for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The ld. counsel for the assessee cited various case laws in support of his contention that mere fact addition has been confirmed in quantum proceedings does not straightway result penalty u/s. 271

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

23 Shri Pavan M. Sharma vs. ITO even if addition is confirmed in quantum proceedings, then no case is made out for penalty u/s. 271(1)(c). The ld. counsel for the assessee cited various case laws in support of his contention that mere fact addition has been confirmed in quantum proceedings does not straightway result penalty u/s. 271

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

23 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

23 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

23 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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

23 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO has neither referred nor relied upon Explanation 7 to Section 271(l)(c) at the time of initiation of the penalty proceedings under

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,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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts are that the assessee, alongwith Shri Nagarji Thakore sold land bearing Block No. 325 at Ambli to “Jayesh Kotak” and “Pravin Kotak” for Rs. 50,00,000/- and declared capital gain