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

50. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 51. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 52. Ground No. 2 of the assessee

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

50. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 51. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 52. Ground No. 2 of the assessee

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

50. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 51. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 52. Ground No. 2 of the assessee

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

50. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 51. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 52. Ground No. 2 of the assessee

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

50. Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal, which is to the effect that Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding levy of penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act is being dismissed for reasons cited above. 51. In the result Ground No. 1 of the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 52. Ground No. 2 of the assessee

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments

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

u/s. 271(1)(c), such an order of assessment or reassessment shall be deemed to constitute satisfaction of Assessing Officer for initiation of penalty proceedings in term of section 271(1B). Therefore, in view of the above factual and legal position, I hold that Assessing Officer had recorded his satisfaction as mandated by the law and hence arguments

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

271(1)(c) of the Act for concealment of income cannot be levied on the assessee when protective assessment was made in case of assessee and income was actually assessed in the hands of another person and it was therefore, not certain as to who out of the two had concealed the income. In the case of Mohd. Khasim

THE ACIT CIRCLE-3(3), AHMEDABAD vs. SHRI CHANDRAKANT G PATEL, AHMEDABAD

Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

section 2(14) of the Act was not available. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.06.2017, the Ld. AO also imposed penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 treating the addition of Rs. 1,90,16,868/-as representing the income in respect of which inaccurate particulars have been furnished. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid penalty-order dated

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), VADODARA vs. M/S. SUN PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD, VADODARA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No

u/s 14A?\n\n2 The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty of Rs.8,64,686/- on account of repairing expenses.\n\n3. The learned CIT(Appeals)) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the penalty on the issue of addition of Rs.94,71,966/- in total income as per provisions

SHRI BALDEVBHAI ATMARAM PATEL,,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, GANDHINAGAR CIRCLE,, GANDHINAGAR

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty order dated 14.08.2014 issued by the DCIT, Gandhinagar Circle, Gandhinagar passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “The Act”) for the Assessment Year 2011-12 to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- has been confirmed. 2. The brief facts leading to the case is this that the assessee initially purchased