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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that 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

41. Accordingly, in view of the above facts, wherein similar additions with respect to the same piece of land has been deleted in the hands of co-owner of the said property and the consequential penalty was also deleted by ITAT, vide order dated 17.09.2021, we are of the considered view that penalty under Section 271

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

RAOOF R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

ANISHA R DHANANI,MUMBAI vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), VADODARA

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 406/Ahd/2020 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2005-2006 Anisha R. Dhanani, A.C.I.T., 281, 28Th Floor, Vs. Circle-1(1)(2) Kalpatru Heights, Vadodara. Dr. A.R. Nair Road, Agripada, Mumbai-400011. Pan: Actpd3111C

u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act on account of concealment of income. 38. The assessee during the penalty proceeding submitted that she has not concealed or furnished any inaccurate particular of income. As such amount of cash and jewelry was received on demise of her father which was disclosed in the return as gift not taxable. During the quantum

I- SERVE SYSTEM PVT. LTD.,,GANDHINAGAR vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

41,190/-. The Assessing Officer invoked penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act and imposed penalty vide order dated 26.07.2013. Both the quantum addition as well as penalty imposed upon the assessee was challenged before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee against the order passed under section 271