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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

section (1) to S.271D and 27 IE of the Act which, categorically provides that the penalty under these provisions can be imposed by the Joint Commissioner. 8. The ld. IT(A) accordingly has erroneously assumed jurisdiction to record satisfaction to levy penalty u/s 27ID and 27IE of the Act, which is beyond his power and accordingly bad and illegal

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

36 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Officer, it is evident that this is not a fit case for imposing 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

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

36 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Officer, it is evident that this is not a fit case for imposing 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

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

36 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Officer, it is evident that this is not a fit case for imposing 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

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

36 Shell Global Solutions International B.V. vs. DCIT & ACIT(IT) vs. Shell Global Solutions International B.V. Officer, it is evident that this is not a fit case for imposing 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

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 148 of the Act and finally levied penalty of Rs. 12,42,609/- being 100% of the amount tax sought to be evaded. 34.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 34.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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 148 of the Act and finally levied penalty of Rs. 12,42,609/- being 100% of the amount tax sought to be evaded. 34.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 34.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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 148 of the Act and finally levied penalty of Rs. 12,42,609/- being 100% of the amount tax sought to be evaded. 34.1 On appeal, the learned CIT(A) also confirmed the penalty levied by the AO under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 34.2 Being aggrieved by the order of the learned

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 passed by the Assessing Officer on 28.03.2016. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in upholding the penalty levied on additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of alleged unexplained investment of Rs. 5,13,883/- on account of unexplained investment block