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 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 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

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

SCHAEFFLER INDIA LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS INA BEARING INDIA PVT. LTD.),VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CICLE-1(1)(2) NOW DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), VADODARA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

u/s 271(l)(c) of Rs. 2,76,33,870.\n9. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the\nlearned AO in levying penalty despite the fact that the Appellant has not furnished\ninaccurate particulars of income either in return of income or during the course of\nassessment proceedings.\n10. The learned

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had entered into substantial financial transactions during the year, her total income exceeded

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had entered into substantial financial transactions during the year, her total income exceeded

AVANI DIPAKBHAI SHAH,VADODARA vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE INTL. TXN., VADODARA

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

69 of the Act. 6. Further, since the assessee had neither filed her return of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time nor in response to notice under section 153C, penalty proceedings under section 271F were initiated. The Assessing Officer held that since the assessee had entered into substantial financial transactions during the year, her total income exceeded

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271

GUJARAT MEDICAL EDUCATION AND RESEARCH SOCIETY AHMEDABAD,GANDHINAGAR vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1, EXEMP, AHMEDABAD

In the result, the appeals of the assessee for A

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act for Rs.166,50,03,312 be deleted. ITA Nos. 2612 to 2616/Ahd/2025 Gujarat Medical Education and Research Society Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Asst. Years –2015-16 & 2018-19 - 4– 4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the penalty under section 271