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

31. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the Id. AO to confirm the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act on the additions sustained in the quantum appellate order, which is wholly unsustainable

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

31. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the Id. AO to confirm the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act on the additions sustained in the quantum appellate order, which is wholly unsustainable

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

31. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the Id. AO to confirm the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act on the additions sustained in the quantum appellate order, which is wholly unsustainable

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

31. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the Id. AO to confirm the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act on the additions sustained in the quantum appellate order, which is wholly unsustainable

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

31. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in directing the Id. AO to confirm the levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act on the additions sustained in the quantum appellate order, which is wholly unsustainable

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

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 u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act. 30. In the result, all grounds of the assessee’s appeal are allowed for assessment year 2009-10. 31. So far as the Cross objection filed by the Department is concerned, since the facts for assessment year 2009-10 are similar to that of assessment year 2007-08, the CO filed

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(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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(1)(c) of the Act. Finally, the AO levied a penalty

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

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

31. We observe that in the case of Dr. Naman A. Shastri vs ACIT 63 taxmann.com 363 (Ahmedabad Bench), the ITAT held that provisions of sections 271AAA and 271(1)(c) are mutually exclusive and, thus, once penalty is initiated under section 271AAA for ‘specified previous year’, there cannot be any occasion to impose penalty under Section 271