GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

1)(c) of the Act despite the fact that the appellant is eligible for exemption under sections 10(23C)(iiiab) of the Act and 10(23C)(iiiac) of the Act, and therefore no addition could be made to its income as such addition even if made, remains exempt and hence, no penalty is leviable u/s. 271(1

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses (Tax effect-Rs. 30.90,55,620) 1.1. The learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in levying penalty of Rs. 30.90.55,620 u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses (Tax effect-Rs. 30.90,55,620) 1.1. The learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in levying penalty of Rs. 30.90.55,620 u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses (Tax effect-Rs. 30.90,55,620) 1.1. The learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in levying penalty of Rs. 30.90.55,620 u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses (Tax effect-Rs. 30.90,55,620) 1.1. The learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in levying penalty of Rs. 30.90.55,620 u/s

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

section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act') in respect of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income on account of lease operating expenses (Tax effect-Rs. 30.90,55,620) 1.1. The learned AO and the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in levying penalty of Rs. 30.90.55,620 u/s

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 115JB 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty on disallowance of remuneration received from partnership firms, M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ('SPI') and Sun Pharma Sikkim ('SPS'). 3.2 The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c

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

section 250 was deleted after considering the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Vodafone Essar Gujarat Ltd [2017] 397 ITR 55.\n\n3. Re: Levy of Penalty u/s 271(1)(c

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 115JB 3.1 The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming the penalty on disallowance of remuneration received from partnership firms, M/s. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries ('SPI') and Sun Pharma Sikkim ('SPS'). 3.2 The Id. CIT(A) grossly erred in upholding the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

section\n271(1)(c) of the IT Act for furnishing inaccurate particular of income.\n6. Conclusion: In the result, the appeal is dismissed.”\n6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed\nby CIT(Appeals) confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271(1

VIKAS VIJAY GUPTA,AHMEDABAD vs. THE PR. CIT, AHMEDABAD-1, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby\ndismissed

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar, Vice President\nAnd Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member\nITA No. 404/Ahd/2024\nAssessment Year 2017-18\nVikas Vijay Gupta\nPrincipal Commissioner\n604 Sarap,\nof Income Tax,\nOpp. Navjivan Press Vs Ahmedabad-1,\nP.O. Navjivan,\nAhmedabad\nAhmedabad-380014,\nGujarat\n(Respondent)\nPAN: AEOPG6723L\n(Appellant)\nAssessee Represented: Shri Jaimin Shah, A.R.\nRevenue Represented: Shri R. N. Dsouza, CIT-DR\nDate of hearing : 27-02-2025\nDate of pronouncement : 27-05-2025\nआदे

penalty u/s 270A\nof the Act which is more or less 'pari materia' with section u/s 271(1)(c

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

C. Thakore have on identical set of facts confirmed the levy of penalty under Section 271AAA of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty under Section 271AAA is hereby confirmed in the hands of the present assessee as well. 23. With regards to levy of penalty of Rs. 49 lakhs under Section 271AAA in the hands of the assessee, the brief facts