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

4,15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction

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

4,15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction

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

4,15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction

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

4,15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction

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

4,15,887/- u/s. 271E of the Act. 64 Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee reiterated the submission of jurisdiction, which were also raised before ld. CIT(A). The assessee submitted that as per section 271D(2) and Section 271E(2) penalty can be levied by “Joint Commissioner”. Hence, the CIT(A) could not have exercised jurisdiction

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

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned

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

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned

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

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned

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

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act by holding that the Appellant has not acted in good faith and with due diligence and therefore would not get covered by the exception mentioned

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 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return 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 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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 271(1)(c) of the Act would be set aside. 9.5.7 In the case of CIT v. SAS Pharmaceuticals 11 taxmann.com 207 (Delhi), the Delhi High Court held that for imposing penalty under section 271(1)(c), concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particular of income by assessee has to be in income-tax return filed

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 271(1) of the Act.” 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partially confirmed and partially deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeals before us raising the following grounds of appeal

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 271(1) of the Act.” 3. Aggrieved against the penalty order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A), who has partially confirmed and partially deleted the penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Aggrieved against the appellate order, both the Assessee and Revenue are in appeals before us raising the following grounds of appeal

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

4. The appellant craves for liberty to add fresh ground(s) of appeal and also to amend, alter, modify any of the grounds of appeal.” 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