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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

271(1), 271A, 271AA, 271G and 271J. Further, as per plain language of the statute, only Joint Commissioner can levy penalty u/s. 271BB, 271CA, 271D, 271E and 271DB. Thus, when the legislature has consciously not empowered CIT(A) I.T.A Nos. 1029, 1030, 1031,1032, 2771 & 2772 /Ahd/2013 A.Y. 2003-04 to 2004-05 Page No. 38 Shri Pavan M. Sharma

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

69,14,229/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 25/03/2013 u/s.274 of the Act. Penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order before the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara and further appeal before ITAT. After disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal

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

69,14,229/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 25/03/2013 u/s.274 of the Act. Penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order before the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara and further appeal before ITAT. After disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 taxmann.com 315 (Bangalore – Tribunal), the ITAT held that where Revenue itself was not sure as to whether alleged capital gains was to be assessed in the hands of assessee and such addition was made on protective basis, penalty under Section 158BFA could not be levied on the assessee. In the case of CIT vs. Sanatan Seva Mandal 40 taxmann.com

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

69,14,229/-. The AO initiated penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act by issuing notice dated 25/03/2013u/s.274 of the Act. Penalty proceedings were kept in abeyance as the assessee had preferred appeal against the quantum assessment order before the CIT(A)-2, Vadodara and further appeal before ITAT. After disposal of the appeals by the Tribunal

THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, BARODA vs. RUBAMIN LIMITED.,, BARODA

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is hereby dismissed

69,600/- levied u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act by holding that neither explanation 1 to I.T.A No. 196/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2007-08 Page No 4 section 271(l)(c) nor the main section itself supported the levy of penalty

ITO, WARD-4(2)(1),, AHMEDABAD vs. M/S.RUSHABH VATIKA,, RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed& Ms. Madhumita Roy

penalty under the provision of Clause (c) of sub-Section (1) of Section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of undisclosed income refer to in sub-Section (1). 4. We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and we have also perused the relevant materials available on record. ITO vs. M/s. Rushabh Vatika Asst.Year