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

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

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The assessing officer stated that during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A which was conducted on the assessee as well as on SPI on 14.07.2006, the appellant had made disclosure with respect to addition of provision of doubtful debts and advance of Rs.94,71,966/- in working

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

penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) had also been initiated in the assessment order. The assessing officer stated that during the survey proceedings u/s. 133A which was conducted on the assessee as well as on SPI on 14.07.2006, the appellant had made disclosure with respect to addition of provision of doubtful debts and advance of Rs.94,71,966/- in working

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 under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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 under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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 under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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 under Section 271(l)(c) of the Act on addition of Rs. 49,28,754 made on account of treating reimbursement of expenses as Fees for Technical Services under Article 12 of the India-Netherlands Tax Treaty. The Appellant reserves the right to add, amend, alter or vary all or any of the above grounds of appeal as they

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.

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the 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.

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the 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.

271(1)(c) of the Act was levied on the income offered by revised return after the same was accepted by the assessee in the survey proceedings. 4.1 Accordingly, the AO held that the assessee has concealed the particular of additional income of Rs. 65 lacs offered during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act and levied the penalty

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under

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

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

71,697/-, “Long Term Capital Gain” (“LTCG” for short) in the hands of the assessee worked out at Rs. 65,28,303/-. Since assessee had already declared LTCG of Rs. 16,28,303/- in the return of income, Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 49,00,000/- in respect of undisclosed capital gain on sale of land. Eventually, penalty under