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

D. The AO imposed penalty on confirmed addition of Rs.4,22,77,759/- and hence this appeal is filed. My predecessor the CIT(A)-II, Vadodara vide order No. CIT(A)-2/49/16-17 dated 30.01.2017 deleted the penalty levied on the similar addition made on same facts in A.Y. 2008-09, in para 4.7 of the said order the relevant

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

D. The AO imposed penalty on confirmed addition of Rs.4,22,77,759/- and hence this appeal is filed. My predecessor the CIT(A)-II, Vadodara vide order No. CIT(A)-2/49/16-17 dated 30.01.2017 deleted the penalty levied on the similar addition made on same facts in A.Y. 2008-09, in para 4.7 of the said order the relevant

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

D E R PER BENCH: These are appeals filed by the Assessee for various assessments years against levy of penalty by Ld. CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad vide separate orders dated 27.12.2018, 27.12.2019 and 27.02.2019. Since common facts and issues for consideration are before us for all the years under consideration, all the appeals are being disposed

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.

D Sutaria for A.Y. 2010-11. 33. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 12,42,000/- only. 34. The facts in brief are that the assessee in original return, under section 139(1

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.

D Sutaria for A.Y. 2010-11. 33. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 12,42,000/- only. 34. The facts in brief are that the assessee in original return, under section 139(1

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.

D Sutaria for A.Y. 2010-11. 33. The only issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Rs. 12,42,000/- only. 34. The facts in brief are that the assessee in original return, under section 139(1

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb

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

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act even in a situation wherein the learned AO in the notice issued under Section 274 r.w.s. 271(l)(c) did not specify under which limb

SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD.,,VADODARA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1),, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is hereby partially allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Memebr

D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 928/Ahd/2017 & 921/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09) Sun Pharmaceutical Deputy Commissioner of बनाम/ Industries Ltd. Income Tax, Vs. Circle- 2(1)(1), Vadodara “SPARC”, Tandalja, Vadodara & Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sun Income Tax, Pharmaceuticals Circle- 2(1)(1