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

45. 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

45. 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

45. 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

45. 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

45. 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 on addition of " 45,80,841/- made on account of higher profit attributable to project office (PO). The brief facts in relation to this Grounds of Appeal are that during the year under consideration, the Appellant under its contract with Center for High Technology ('CHT') was required to render certain supervisory services

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 on addition of " 45,80,841/- made on account of higher profit attributable to project office (PO). The brief facts in relation to this Grounds of Appeal are that during the year under consideration, the Appellant under its contract with Center for High Technology ('CHT') was required to render certain supervisory services

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 on addition of " 45,80,841/- made on account of higher profit attributable to project office (PO). The brief facts in relation to this Grounds of Appeal are that during the year under consideration, the Appellant under its contract with Center for High Technology ('CHT') was required to render certain supervisory services

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 on addition of " 45,80,841/- made on account of higher profit attributable to project office (PO). The brief facts in relation to this Grounds of Appeal are that during the year under consideration, the Appellant under its contract with Center for High Technology ('CHT') was required to render certain supervisory services

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

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

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