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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

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

section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments of Ld. Authorized Representative on this account are rejected. 6.2. The appellant has also submitted that while initiating the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not specified as to whether

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

section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments of Ld. Authorized Representative on this account are rejected. 6.2. The appellant has also submitted that while initiating the penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer has not specified as to whether

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

24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled. 26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled. 26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled. 26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled. 26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled. 26. In the result, both appeals of the assessee