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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. 18. In appeal before ld. CIT(A), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in respect of all grounds raised before him. In respect of loan of Rs. 2,80,000/-from M/s. Ram Lakhan Sharma, ld. CIT(A) noted that except the copy of ledger account of Mr. Ram Lakhan

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,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 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

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 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

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 153A of the Act as on 7th December 2016 wherein declared additional income of Rs. 25 lakhs against the cash deposited in the bank account and contributed to the partnership firm. The AO against the additional income offered initiated penalty proceedings under section 271

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 271AAA of the Act in the hands of the assessee. The Department has taken into consideration the seized material found during the course of search and after careful analysis has confirmed the quantum additions in the hands of the assessee. 25. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal with respect to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs is hereby dismissed