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,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

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

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 ROHITJI 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

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 14A?\n\n2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,64,686/- on account of repairing expenses.\n\n3. The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on the issue of addition of Rs.94,71,966/- in total income as per provisions

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received

AXIS BANK LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

24 November 2021. and it believes that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner would have received the said order at around same lime. Considering the same, the time limit for passing penalty order as per section 275(1)(a) had been expired on 31 May 2022 However, penalty order had been received