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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of order dated 20 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1, Ahmedabad ('the learned AO') under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, on the grounds v. as set out herein: The following grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

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

250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), in respect of order dated 20 July 2017 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation -1, Ahmedabad ('the learned AO') under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act, on the grounds v. as set out herein: The following grounds are independent and without prejudice to one another

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

6. Ground No.2, the appellant has challenged imposition of penalty on the ground that Assessing Officer had not recorded proper and specific satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings in the assessment proceedings which is necessary even after insertion of section 271(1B). The contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives that the Assessing Officer has not recorded proper and specific satisfaction

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

6. Ground No.2, the appellant has challenged imposition of penalty on the ground that Assessing Officer had not recorded proper and specific satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings in the assessment proceedings which is necessary even after insertion of section 271(1B). The contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives that the Assessing Officer has not recorded proper and specific satisfaction

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

6. The issue involves levy of penalty under Section 271AAA on two additions made while framing assessment, consequent to search carried out on 21.09.2010: Amt. (Rs.) Particulars Rs.1,89,43,840/- Undisclosed consideration on sale of land Rs.1,48,00,000/- Protective addition w.r.t. undisclosed capital gain Penalty on addition of Rs. 1,89,43,840/- 7. The brief facts

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 274 does not clearly specify the charge based on which, the penalty proceeding are initiated, the penalty proceedings needs to be quashed since there is no application mind by the Learned AO.” 3. The brief fact of the case is this that the assessee engaged in the business of dealing in construction, telecom & infrastructure work filed its return

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

6. Ground No.2, the appellant has challenged imposition of penalty on the ground that Assessing Officer had not recorded proper and specific satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings in the assessment proceedings which is necessary even after insertion of section 271(1B). The contentions of the Ld. Authorized Representatives that the Assessing Officer has not recorded proper and specific satisfaction

SHRI JITENDRA P.VAGHELA,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD

250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y) 2009-10 confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. I.T.A No. 1731/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No 2 Jitendra P. Vaghela vs. ITO 2. Facts of the case in brief are that the assessee was issued

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(3)(2)(FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3)), AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law after providing proper and adequate opportunities to both the parties and in compliance of provision of section 250(6

NIRAJ PRATAPBHAI SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-3(3)(2), (FORMERLY ITO, WARD-3(3)(3),, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench

penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) , and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the appeal of the assessee on merits in accordance with law after providing proper and adequate opportunities to both the parties and in compliance of provision of section 250(6