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 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

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 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

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 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

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 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

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 271(l)(c) of the Act without recording mandatory satisfaction as contemplated under the Act at the time of framing the assessment order. 5. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the fact and that they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which

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

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

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

48,378/- and Rs.5,13,883/-. 24. Now we take ITA No.204/Ahd/2020 (Penalty order) 25. Since additions on which impugned penalty has been levied, stand deleted by order of the Tribunal in the quantum appeal adjudicated hereinabove, impugned penalty levied by the AO and confirmed by the ld.CIT(A) is not sustainable, hence the same stands cancelled

TRANSWIND COMMUNICATION ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD.,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY.CIT, (OSD), CIRCLE-8,, AHMEDABAD

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

section 274 does not clearly specify the charge based on which, the penalty proceeding are initiated, the penalty proceedings needs to be quashed since there is no application mind by the Learned AO.” 3. The brief fact of the case is this that the assessee engaged in the business of dealing in construction, telecom & infrastructure work filed its return

GUJARAT POWER CORPORATION LIMITED-GPCL,,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby allowed

section. The assessee’s alternative claim is that if the 1/10th deduction u/s. 35E Rs. 35,37,800/- is not allowed then the entire expenditure of Rs. 7,78,31,600/- is allowable u/s. 37 of the Act. The above contention was not accepted by the Assessing Officer and the same is added as the income of the assessee