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

28-01-2013, on the basis of facts available on record, drew satisfaction in the said appeal order and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271D of the Act. As per provisions of section 269SS, acceptance of deposit in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271D of the Act may be levied

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

28-01-2013, on the basis of facts available on record, drew satisfaction in the said appeal order and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271D of the Act. As per provisions of section 269SS, acceptance of deposit in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271D of the Act may be levied

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

28-01-2013, on the basis of facts available on record, drew satisfaction in the said appeal order and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271D of the Act. As per provisions of section 269SS, acceptance of deposit in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271D of the Act may be levied

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

28-01-2013, on the basis of facts available on record, drew satisfaction in the said appeal order and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271D of the Act. As per provisions of section 269SS, acceptance of deposit in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271D of the Act may be levied

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

28-01-2013, on the basis of facts available on record, drew satisfaction in the said appeal order and initiated penalty proceedings u/s. 271D and 271D of the Act. As per provisions of section 269SS, acceptance of deposit in cash exceeding Rs. 20,000/- is prohibited for which penalty u/s. 271D of the Act may be levied

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 on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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 on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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 on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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 on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Rs. 7,72,500/- on the additional income offered in the return filed under section 153A of the Act. 28. The necessary facts are that the assessee was subject to the search proceedings dated 4th December 2014 and therefore, the proceedings u/s

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.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Rs. 7,72,500/- on the additional income offered in the return filed under section 153A of the Act. 28. The necessary facts are that the assessee was subject to the search proceedings dated 4th December 2014 and therefore, the proceedings u/s

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.

penalty under section 271(1)(c) for Rs. 7,72,500/- on the additional income offered in the return filed under section 153A of the Act. 28. The necessary facts are that the assessee was subject to the search proceedings dated 4th December 2014 and therefore, the proceedings 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

u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. This view gets support from the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer on this account is directed to be deleted and appellant succeeds in respect of Ground No. 10." 8.1. In view of above facts, the penalty levied

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

u/s. 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed. This view gets support from the ratio laid down in the case of Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Hence the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer on this account is directed to be deleted and appellant succeeds in respect of Ground No. 10." 8.1. In view of above facts, the penalty levied

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and such penalty has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 29. The Counsel for the assessee has taken

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and such penalty has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 29. The Counsel for the assessee has taken

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and such penalty has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 29. The Counsel for the assessee has taken

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and such penalty has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 29. The Counsel for the assessee has taken

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

28. The limited issue for consideration for the impugned assessment year is the levy of penalty of Rs. 59,34,456/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act by the Assessing Officer and such penalty has been confirmed by Ld. CIT(A), against which the assessee is in appeal before us. 29. The Counsel for the assessee has taken